Technicians play a highly significant, but often invisible, role in research. Despite growing recognition of the importance of technicians, through initiatives such as the Technician’s Commitment, their contribution is inconsistently recognized across research groups, between disciplines, and within institutions. This article presents a simple framework, based on existing standards that can be easily integrated into common research workflows to capture technician contributions. By utilizing ORCID identifiers, Digital Object Identifiers, and the CRediT contributor role taxonomy, technician contribution can be quantified, recognized, and valuable additional data can be created for the planning and management of future research. Presented in the context of the Australasian higher education system, the framework is illustrated with a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics focus but is applicable across all disciplines.
{"title":"Quantifying the contributions technicians make to research","authors":"Clare McLaren, A. Dent","doi":"10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAA035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAA035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Technicians play a highly significant, but often invisible, role in research. Despite growing recognition of the importance of technicians, through initiatives such as the Technician’s Commitment, their contribution is inconsistently recognized across research groups, between disciplines, and within institutions. This article presents a simple framework, based on existing standards that can be easily integrated into common research workflows to capture technician contributions. By utilizing ORCID identifiers, Digital Object Identifiers, and the CRediT contributor role taxonomy, technician contribution can be quantified, recognized, and valuable additional data can be created for the planning and management of future research. Presented in the context of the Australasian higher education system, the framework is illustrated with a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics focus but is applicable across all disciplines.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAA035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46813154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Aranguren, Patricia Canto-Farachala, James R. Wilson
Public and private research funding to academic institutions is increasingly conditional on demonstrating societal impact. Research is expected to produce new knowledge that is both relevant in academia and of direct practical use in society. Universities are well placed to serve as links between global academic communities and local problem owners. However, playing this pivotal role is problematic because in practice there is a tendency to frame the dual role of producing socially relevant and academic knowledge in terms of an artificial distinction between applied consultancy and basic research. Considering the challenges faced by universities in playing a more proactive role in addressing the practical challenges faced by their home regions, we propose the term transformative academic institutions to refer to research centres created within universities to proactively engage in the socioeconomic development of the regions in which they are rooted. We propose an experimental framework that can help map the relationship between their role in a global academic knowledge community and their role in the (local) practical knowledge community. The framework is developed from on our own experience working in an academic institution that conducts research to strengthen regional socioeconomic development processes. We experiment with the framework through an application to our own research context in the period 2016–19. Our findings show that this relationship can be mapped by assessing: (1) how well academic research questions are aligned to themes identified in regional policy discourse; and (2) whether academic knowledge has demonstrably led to changes actioned by regional stakeholders.
{"title":"Transformative academic institutions: An experimental framework for understanding regional impacts of research","authors":"M. Aranguren, Patricia Canto-Farachala, James R. Wilson","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvaa030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Public and private research funding to academic institutions is increasingly conditional on demonstrating societal impact. Research is expected to produce new knowledge that is both relevant in academia and of direct practical use in society. Universities are well placed to serve as links between global academic communities and local problem owners. However, playing this pivotal role is problematic because in practice there is a tendency to frame the dual role of producing socially relevant and academic knowledge in terms of an artificial distinction between applied consultancy and basic research. Considering the challenges faced by universities in playing a more proactive role in addressing the practical challenges faced by their home regions, we propose the term transformative academic institutions to refer to research centres created within universities to proactively engage in the socioeconomic development of the regions in which they are rooted. We propose an experimental framework that can help map the relationship between their role in a global academic knowledge community and their role in the (local) practical knowledge community. The framework is developed from on our own experience working in an academic institution that conducts research to strengthen regional socioeconomic development processes. We experiment with the framework through an application to our own research context in the period 2016–19. Our findings show that this relationship can be mapped by assessing: (1) how well academic research questions are aligned to themes identified in regional policy discourse; and (2) whether academic knowledge has demonstrably led to changes actioned by regional stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44820980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer-review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19-related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer-review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between the review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19-related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19-related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.
全球新冠肺炎大流行对科学事业产生了相当大的影响，包括学术出版和同行评审实践。几项研究评估了这些影响，其中包括医学期刊大大加快了对covid -19相关内容的审查过程。这使人们对审查过程的质量和手稿出版的标准产生了疑问和关切。为了解决这些问题，本研究着手评估2020年大流行期间发表的与Covid-19相关的文章、与Covid-19无关的文章和大流行之前发表的文章的审查报告和编辑决定函的质的差异。它采用《英国医学杂志》(British Medical Journal)和eLife的开放式同行评议模式，研究评议报告的内容、编辑决定、作者回复和开放的读者评论。它发现，在大流行期间或之前发表的与Covid-19无关的文章的审查程序之间没有明显差异。然而，它确实发现与Covid-19相关的文章与非Covid-19相关的文章之间存在显着的差异，包括对额外实验的请求减少，更多的合作评论以及对过于强烈的主张提出不同的建议。总体而言，研究结果表明，审稿人和期刊编辑在评估与covid -19相关的稿件时，无论是含蓄地还是明确地，都使用了不同的质量标准，从而改变了科学对其基础研究的主要评估机制，并可能影响其公共传播。
{"title":"No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic","authors":"S. Horbach","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvaa037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer-review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19-related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer-review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between the review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19-related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19-related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45029037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：