游戏结束:授权早期职业研究人员提高研究质量

IF 1.1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Insights-The UKSG Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI:10.1629/UKSG.548
Véronique De Herde, M. Björnmalm, T. Susi
{"title":"游戏结束:授权早期职业研究人员提高研究质量","authors":"Véronique De Herde, M. Björnmalm, T. Susi","doi":"10.1629/UKSG.548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Game over: empower early career researchers to improve research quality\",\"authors\":\"Véronique De Herde, M. Björnmalm, T. Susi\",\"doi\":\"10.1629/UKSG.548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.548\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

研究评估过程正受到越来越多的审查,批评者认为它们对研究质量有不利影响,而且它们支持了一种竞争的研究文化,损害了合作。基于三个个人观点,我们考虑了当前的研究评估系统是如何将早期职业研究人员及其导师锁定在当前评估框架内推进学术生涯所必需的实践中。我们反思的主要领域的变化将使更好的研究实践的发展;许多人与开放科学结盟。特别是,我们建议采用一种系统的研究评估方法,考虑到其与更广泛的研究机构和高等教育的财政支持机制的联系。我们呼吁学术界围绕这些问题展开更多对话,并相信赋予早期职业研究者权力是提高研究质量的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Game over: empower early career researchers to improve research quality
Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insights-The UKSG Journal
Insights-The UKSG Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The missing link: the quality of UK local and national online media coverage of research The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset EvenUP: a case study of building cross-publisher collaboration on Equity, Diversity, Inclusivity and Belonging Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights Open access at a crossroads: library publishing and bibliodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1