Gender diversity in STEM remains a significant issue, as the field continues to be a male dominated one, despite increased attention on the subject. This article examines the interplay between gender diversity on projects funded by a major UK research council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the publication activity of a project, as measured by the average journal quality of project publication output, over a 10-year period. The proportion of female representation and leadership on these projects remains very low. For the projects examined as part of this study, over 70% of these projects have no female representation, and less than 15% have a female lead. This study does not find a significant relationship between gender diversity and journal quality output. This study highlights that an important avenue for future work is the development of alternative metrics to assess the performance of research projects in a discipline characterized by very low levels of gender diversity, to fully unpack the impact of project team gender diversity on project output activity.
{"title":"Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK","authors":"Y. Sarabi, Matthew Smith","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Gender diversity in STEM remains a significant issue, as the field continues to be a male dominated one, despite increased attention on the subject. This article examines the interplay between gender diversity on projects funded by a major UK research council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the publication activity of a project, as measured by the average journal quality of project publication output, over a 10-year period. The proportion of female representation and leadership on these projects remains very low. For the projects examined as part of this study, over 70% of these projects have no female representation, and less than 15% have a female lead. This study does not find a significant relationship between gender diversity and journal quality output. This study highlights that an important avenue for future work is the development of alternative metrics to assess the performance of research projects in a discipline characterized by very low levels of gender diversity, to fully unpack the impact of project team gender diversity on project output activity.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42331193","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}
Recent decades have seen a major transformation of the Spanish university system caused by changes introduced in the teaching staff evaluation procedure in which research has been prioritized. As a result, there has been a growing interest in studying how these procedures impact the way in which early career academics construct their professional identity. In this vein, this article aims to analyze how the professional identity of this group is constructed and developed in the current context of higher education. To this end, a single case study was conducted, applying a biographical-narrative approach. The results show how professional identity development has become polarized in terms of initial rejection to full acceptance of the demands of modern academia. Consequently, professional practices have also been affected by the prioritization of research over teaching, leading to the development of unethical practices to maintain competitiveness. All of these effects have contributed to high levels of stress and job dissatisfaction. Furthermore, maternity is also seen as an obstacle to female academics’ professional and academic development. Finally, our findings highlight the need for policies that provide full support aimed at helping young researchers live balanced professional lives.
{"title":"Early career academic's odyssey: A narrative study of her professional identity construction","authors":"Javier Mula-Falcón, K. Caballero","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recent decades have seen a major transformation of the Spanish university system caused by changes introduced in the teaching staff evaluation procedure in which research has been prioritized. As a result, there has been a growing interest in studying how these procedures impact the way in which early career academics construct their professional identity. In this vein, this article aims to analyze how the professional identity of this group is constructed and developed in the current context of higher education. To this end, a single case study was conducted, applying a biographical-narrative approach. The results show how professional identity development has become polarized in terms of initial rejection to full acceptance of the demands of modern academia. Consequently, professional practices have also been affected by the prioritization of research over teaching, leading to the development of unethical practices to maintain competitiveness. All of these effects have contributed to high levels of stress and job dissatisfaction. Furthermore, maternity is also seen as an obstacle to female academics’ professional and academic development. Finally, our findings highlight the need for policies that provide full support aimed at helping young researchers live balanced professional lives.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43914086","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}
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, O. Llopis, P. D’Este, J. Molas-Gallart
Translational research policies aim to reshape how biomedical scientists organize, conceive, and conduct science in order to accelerate healthcare improvements and medical innovations. Yet most analyses and evaluations of these initiatives focus on measuring the outputs generated in the different stages of the research process rather than observing scientists’ research practices directly. In this article, we analyze the collaboration networks formed by the biomedical scientists participating in a large translational research initiative. Based on data derived from a large-scale survey, we examine the network configurations established by biomedical scientists to advance their research in the context of the CIBER program—a Spanish flagship initiative aimed at supporting translational research. We adopt an ego-network perspective and draw on three network attributes—network diversity, tie strength, and tie content—to understand how scientists use their interpersonal connections to mobilize tangible and intangible resources and enable the translation of scientific knowledge into practical applications. Our cluster analysis identifies a range of scientist profiles: downstream-oriented scientists, upstream-oriented scientists, and brokering scientists. It shows that the scientists participating in the CIBER program deploy different types of collaborative behavior and engage in a variety of medical innovation activities. This suggests that the results achieved by a research program aimed at supporting collaborative networks will depend on the types of networks in which the participating scientists engage. Consequently, evaluations of these programs need to capture collaboration patterns, and should focus primarily on the collaborative process rather than the outputs that emerge from the collaboration.
{"title":"Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks","authors":"Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, O. Llopis, P. D’Este, J. Molas-Gallart","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Translational research policies aim to reshape how biomedical scientists organize, conceive, and conduct science in order to accelerate healthcare improvements and medical innovations. Yet most analyses and evaluations of these initiatives focus on measuring the outputs generated in the different stages of the research process rather than observing scientists’ research practices directly. In this article, we analyze the collaboration networks formed by the biomedical scientists participating in a large translational research initiative. Based on data derived from a large-scale survey, we examine the network configurations established by biomedical scientists to advance their research in the context of the CIBER program—a Spanish flagship initiative aimed at supporting translational research. We adopt an ego-network perspective and draw on three network attributes—network diversity, tie strength, and tie content—to understand how scientists use their interpersonal connections to mobilize tangible and intangible resources and enable the translation of scientific knowledge into practical applications. Our cluster analysis identifies a range of scientist profiles: downstream-oriented scientists, upstream-oriented scientists, and brokering scientists. It shows that the scientists participating in the CIBER program deploy different types of collaborative behavior and engage in a variety of medical innovation activities. This suggests that the results achieved by a research program aimed at supporting collaborative networks will depend on the types of networks in which the participating scientists engage. Consequently, evaluations of these programs need to capture collaboration patterns, and should focus primarily on the collaborative process rather than the outputs that emerge from the collaboration.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"65 1-2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41330317","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}
Europe has taken a world leadership position in setting policy priorities for Circular Bioeconomy (CBE) as a key determinant of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Consequently, European R&D investment in this area keeps growing along with the societal pressure to demonstrate the return of investment of publicly funded projects. Thus, this work presents a pioneering exploratory analysis of the extent to which projects funded at the European level incorporate the policy priorities for which they are being designed in the context of CBE, and how can the impact they are having on society be assessed. Thence, project impact evaluation is carried out in the short- and medium-term, and categorized under Industrial Competitiveness, Sustainable Development, and Community and Public Policies. For this purpose, secondary information was gathered from the European projects database Cordis, as well as primary information through a questionnaire survey of project coordinators. The empirical data collected suggest that European Framework Programmes have been fulfilling their purpose, as they are increasingly societal challenges-driven and market-oriented. This is evidenced by market-related topics addressed in the projects analysed and by the active participation of companies that outnumber academic institutions. As far as impact is concerned, scientific publications continue to be the main result of this type of project in the short-term, whereas in the medium-term social and economic benefits were also identified. Notably, the creation of scientific jobs in the industry, of industrial joint ventures, and the generation of documents to support the improvement of public and EU policies on biobased products.
{"title":"On the societal impact of publicly funded Circular Bioeconomy research in Europe","authors":"A. Brandão, José M. R. C. A. Santos","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Europe has taken a world leadership position in setting policy priorities for Circular Bioeconomy (CBE) as a key determinant of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Consequently, European R&D investment in this area keeps growing along with the societal pressure to demonstrate the return of investment of publicly funded projects. Thus, this work presents a pioneering exploratory analysis of the extent to which projects funded at the European level incorporate the policy priorities for which they are being designed in the context of CBE, and how can the impact they are having on society be assessed. Thence, project impact evaluation is carried out in the short- and medium-term, and categorized under Industrial Competitiveness, Sustainable Development, and Community and Public Policies. For this purpose, secondary information was gathered from the European projects database Cordis, as well as primary information through a questionnaire survey of project coordinators. The empirical data collected suggest that European Framework Programmes have been fulfilling their purpose, as they are increasingly societal challenges-driven and market-oriented. This is evidenced by market-related topics addressed in the projects analysed and by the active participation of companies that outnumber academic institutions. As far as impact is concerned, scientific publications continue to be the main result of this type of project in the short-term, whereas in the medium-term social and economic benefits were also identified. Notably, the creation of scientific jobs in the industry, of industrial joint ventures, and the generation of documents to support the improvement of public and EU policies on biobased products.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48878923","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}
Mireille Matt, Douglas K R Robinson, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Renée Van Dis, Laurence Colinet
Abstract The promise that research and innovation (R&I) will contribute to societally desired changes poses a difficult analytical and evaluative challenge. The aim of this article is to present a framework and a toolset, labelled ASIRPAReal-Time, that aides R&I program and project managers to design and steer R&I activities in real-time towards expected directions. It is based on the analytical concepts, language, and lessons learned from the case studies and the practice of the toolset developed in ASIRPAex post. ASIRPAReal-Time is a formative nested approach that fosters learning processes, coordination, and reflexivity at project and program levels. It is iterative and analyses how intermediate results may lead to reconsidering the vision of the R&I pathways. ASIRPAReal-Time is designed and operationalized through intervention research, mobilizing testbeds (i.e. co-experimentation with potential users) to develop and continuously improve the tools. The toolset is designed to be transferable to, and operationalized by, program and project managers since they have the relevant knowledge related to their field of expertise. This article presents the creation of the framework and management tools, detailing the journey of redesigning a tool in a new use context as well as providing a broader reflection on the tools themselves and their applications.
{"title":"ASIRPAReal-Time in the making or how to empower researchers to steer research towards desired societal goals","authors":"Mireille Matt, Douglas K R Robinson, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Renée Van Dis, Laurence Colinet","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The promise that research and innovation (R&I) will contribute to societally desired changes poses a difficult analytical and evaluative challenge. The aim of this article is to present a framework and a toolset, labelled ASIRPAReal-Time, that aides R&I program and project managers to design and steer R&I activities in real-time towards expected directions. It is based on the analytical concepts, language, and lessons learned from the case studies and the practice of the toolset developed in ASIRPAex post. ASIRPAReal-Time is a formative nested approach that fosters learning processes, coordination, and reflexivity at project and program levels. It is iterative and analyses how intermediate results may lead to reconsidering the vision of the R&I pathways. ASIRPAReal-Time is designed and operationalized through intervention research, mobilizing testbeds (i.e. co-experimentation with potential users) to develop and continuously improve the tools. The toolset is designed to be transferable to, and operationalized by, program and project managers since they have the relevant knowledge related to their field of expertise. This article presents the creation of the framework and management tools, detailing the journey of redesigning a tool in a new use context as well as providing a broader reflection on the tools themselves and their applications.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135583775","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 Studies point out that the productivity decline in biomedicine is in significant part due to difficulties in translating basic science into clinical application. To promote translational research, the US NIH launched the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program in 2006. Prior evaluations of the CTSA program often assumed that the key to translation is inter-organizational collaboration or multidisciplinarity; hence, changes in either of these were measured as evidence of translational science. However, using novel measures of translational science, this study examines the relationship between CTSAs and translational science per se. We define ‘translational science’ as basic science that has translational features, and we employ two distinct, complementary measures of translational science based on publication data. Using 115 Carnegie R1 universities and their translational science publications, we find that receiving a CTSA does not obviously cause receiving institutions to conduct more translational science. Furthermore, our Principal Investigator-level analysis shows that those who received direct support from the CTSA program had already generated more translational science than others and that their research behavior did not change significantly after receiving a CTSA. Future evaluation research can adopt our novel measures of translational science and evaluation research design in the assessment of translational research activities. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for science governance.
{"title":"The rocky road to translational science: An analysis of Clinical and Translational Science Awards","authors":"Yeon Hak Kim, You-Na Lee, Seokkyun Woo","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvac048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies point out that the productivity decline in biomedicine is in significant part due to difficulties in translating basic science into clinical application. To promote translational research, the US NIH launched the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program in 2006. Prior evaluations of the CTSA program often assumed that the key to translation is inter-organizational collaboration or multidisciplinarity; hence, changes in either of these were measured as evidence of translational science. However, using novel measures of translational science, this study examines the relationship between CTSAs and translational science per se. We define ‘translational science’ as basic science that has translational features, and we employ two distinct, complementary measures of translational science based on publication data. Using 115 Carnegie R1 universities and their translational science publications, we find that receiving a CTSA does not obviously cause receiving institutions to conduct more translational science. Furthermore, our Principal Investigator-level analysis shows that those who received direct support from the CTSA program had already generated more translational science than others and that their research behavior did not change significantly after receiving a CTSA. Future evaluation research can adopt our novel measures of translational science and evaluation research design in the assessment of translational research activities. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for science governance.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135300512","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 A multi-criteria decision-making system based on stakeholder evaluation is performed to investigate the nexus between research impact and sustainability performance in the agro-food sector, in Spain. This study attempts to go a step further beyond the scientific assessment of research by examining its societal contribution. The empirical application is built upon the ELECTRE III methodology. Combining Evaluation theory and Stakeholder theory, the analysis facilitates the assessment of research impact with the inclusion of stakeholders’ knowledge. Four research programmes are selected from different agro-food industries representing the case studies addressed in this study. Each stakeholder performs an evaluation of the research programmes based on indicators and sub-indicators of sustainability performance. The findings reveal ranking matrices of research impact and demonstrate its implicit contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. This study provides insights to policy-makers and practitioners and sheds light on how research evaluation accentuates the transition to sustainable agro-food sector.
{"title":"The nexus between research impact and sustainability assessment: From stakeholders’ perspective","authors":"Nour Chams, Bouali Guesmi, José María Gil","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A multi-criteria decision-making system based on stakeholder evaluation is performed to investigate the nexus between research impact and sustainability performance in the agro-food sector, in Spain. This study attempts to go a step further beyond the scientific assessment of research by examining its societal contribution. The empirical application is built upon the ELECTRE III methodology. Combining Evaluation theory and Stakeholder theory, the analysis facilitates the assessment of research impact with the inclusion of stakeholders’ knowledge. Four research programmes are selected from different agro-food industries representing the case studies addressed in this study. Each stakeholder performs an evaluation of the research programmes based on indicators and sub-indicators of sustainability performance. The findings reveal ranking matrices of research impact and demonstrate its implicit contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. This study provides insights to policy-makers and practitioners and sheds light on how research evaluation accentuates the transition to sustainable agro-food sector.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135545438","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}
Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, Rodrigo Costas, Gabriela F Nane, Thed N van Leeuwen
Abstract Evaluation systems have been long criticized for abusing and misusing bibliometric indicators. This has created a culture by which academics are constantly exposing their daily work to the standards they are expected to perform. In this study, we investigate whether researchers’ own values and expectations are in line with the expectations of the evaluation system. We conduct a multiple case study of five departments in two Dutch universities to examine how they balance between their own valuation regimes and the evaluation schemes. For this, we combine curriculum analysis with a series of semi-structured interviews. We propose a model to study the diversity of academic activities and apply it to the multiple case study to understand how such diversity is shaped by discipline and career stage. We conclude that the observed misalignment is not only resulting from an abuse of metrics but also by a lack of tools to evaluate performance in a contextualized and adaptable way.
{"title":"Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance","authors":"Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, Rodrigo Costas, Gabriela F Nane, Thed N van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvac049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac049","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Evaluation systems have been long criticized for abusing and misusing bibliometric indicators. This has created a culture by which academics are constantly exposing their daily work to the standards they are expected to perform. In this study, we investigate whether researchers’ own values and expectations are in line with the expectations of the evaluation system. We conduct a multiple case study of five departments in two Dutch universities to examine how they balance between their own valuation regimes and the evaluation schemes. For this, we combine curriculum analysis with a series of semi-structured interviews. We propose a model to study the diversity of academic activities and apply it to the multiple case study to understand how such diversity is shaped by discipline and career stage. We conclude that the observed misalignment is not only resulting from an abuse of metrics but also by a lack of tools to evaluate performance in a contextualized and adaptable way.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136117872","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 It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve marginalized groups versus those that sustain the status quo.
{"title":"From intent to impact—The decline of broader impacts throughout an NSF project life cycle","authors":"Thomas Woodson, Sophia Boutilier","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvac046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve marginalized groups versus those that sustain the status quo.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135367356","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}
{"title":"Voices from the field","authors":"J. Melkers, E. Reale, T. V. van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47413178","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：