1
|
Devriendt T, Shabani M, Borry P. Reward systems for cohort data sharing: An interview study with funding agencies. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0282969. [PMID: 36961773 PMCID: PMC10038295 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2023] [Indexed: 03/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Data infrastructures are being constructed to facilitate cohort data sharing. These infrastructures are anticipated to increase the rate of data sharing. However, the lack of data sharing has also been framed as being the consequence of the lack of reputational or financial incentives for sharing. Some initiatives try to confer value onto data sharing by making researchers' individual contributions to research visible (i.e., contributorship) or by quantifying the degree to which research data has been shared (e.g., data indicators). So far, the role of downstream evaluation and funding distribution systems for reputational incentives remains underexplored. This interview study documents the perspectives of members of funding agencies on, amongst other elements, incentives for data sharing. Funding agencies are adopting narrative CVs to encourage evaluation of diverse research outputs and display diversity in researchers' profiles. This was argued to diminish the focus on quantitative indicators of scientific productivity. Indicators related to open science dimensions may be reintroduced if they are fully developed. Shifts towards contributorship models for research outputs are seen as complementary to narrative review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thijs Devriendt
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mahsa Shabani
- Faculty of Law and Criminology, METAMEDICA, UGent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Robinson-Garcia N, Costas R, Nane GF, van Leeuwen TN. Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2023. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Robinson-Garcia
- EC3 Research Group, Departamento de Información y Comunicación, Colegio Máximo de Cartuja s/n, 18071, Universidad de Granada, Granada , Spain
- Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, Building 36 Mekelweg 4 2628 CD Delft , Netherlands
| | - Rodrigo Costas
- Centre for Science and Technology Sutides (CWTS), Leiden University, Willem Einthoven Building Kolffpad 1 2333 BN Leiden , The Netherlands
- Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST), Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Krotoa Building Building, 52 Ryneveld Street, Stellenbosch, 7600 , South Africa
| | - Gabriela F Nane
- Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, Building 36 Mekelweg 4 2628 CD Delft , Netherlands
| | - Thed N van Leeuwen
- Centre for Science and Technology Sutides (CWTS), Leiden University, Willem Einthoven Building Kolffpad 1 2333 BN Leiden , The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Faber Frandsen T, Nicolaisen J. Publishing in library and information science journals: The success of less experienced researchers. J Inf Sci 2022. [DOI: 10.1177/01655515221101840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
This study explores the publishing success of less experienced researchers including early career researchers in a selection of library and information science journals. The study includes all authors of articles and reviews published in 10 library and information science journals during a 20-year period (2001–2020). The prior publication of each author is determined at the time of publication in one of the ten journals. The analysis includes 14,612 publications and publication histories of 36,417 authors. The results show that there are considerable differences between journals, and that the share of publications by less experienced researchers has generally decreased over time. Library automation journals publish considerably more publications by early career researchers than information science journals do. Publications in these 10 library and information science journals are being published by authors with an increasing publishing experience and fewer papers are being published by author teams with little experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tove Faber Frandsen
- Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
- Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ramos-Vielba I, Robinson-Garcia N, Woolley R. A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0269004. [PMID: 35657967 PMCID: PMC9165788 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
The interplay between science and society takes place through a wide range of intertwined relationships and mutual influences that shape each other and facilitate continuous knowledge flows. Stylised consequentialist perspectives on valuable knowledge moving from public science to society in linear and recursive pathways, whilst informative, cannot fully capture the broad spectrum of value creation possibilities. As an alternative we experiment with an approach that gathers together diverse science-society interconnections and reciprocal research-related knowledge processes that can generate valorisation. Our approach to value creation attempts to incorporate multiple facets, directions and dynamics in which constellations of scientific and societal actors generate value from research. The paper develops a conceptual model based on a set of nine value components derived from four key research-related knowledge processes: production, translation, communication, and utilization. The paper conducts an exploratory empirical study to investigate whether a set of archetypes can be discerned among these components that structure science-society interconnections. We explore how such archetypes vary between major scientific fields. Each archetype is overlaid on a research topic map, with our results showing the distinctive topic areas that correspond to different archetypes. The paper finishes by discussing the significance and limitations of our results and the potential of both our model and our empirical approach for further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Ramos-Vielba
- Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Nicolas Robinson-Garcia
- EC3 Research Group, Information and Communication Studies Department, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
| | - Richard Woolley
- INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Xu H, Bu Y, Liu M, Zhang C, Sun M, Zhang Y, Meyer E, Salas E, Ding Y. Team power dynamics and team impact: New perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.24653] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Huimin Xu
- School of Information University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA
| | - Yi Bu
- Department of Information Management Peking University Beijing China
| | - Meijun Liu
- Institute for Global Public Policy Fudan University Shanghai China
| | - Chenwei Zhang
- Faculty of Education The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong China
| | - Mengyi Sun
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Michigan USA
| | - Yi Zhang
- Faculty of Engineering and IT University of Technology Sydney New South Wales Australia
| | - Eric Meyer
- School of Information University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA
| | - Eduardo Salas
- Department of Psychological Science Rice University Houston Texas USA
| | - Ying Ding
- School of Information University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04363-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
AbstractBiological age is an important sociodemographic factor in studies on academic careers (research productivity, scholarly impact, and collaboration patterns). It is assumed that the academic age, or the time elapsed from the first publication, is a good proxy for biological age. In this study, we analyze the limitations of the proxy in academic career studies, using as an example the entire population of Polish academic scientists and scholars visible in the last decade in global science and holding at least a PhD (N = 20,569). The proxy works well for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines; however, for non-STEMM disciplines (particularly for humanities and social sciences), it has a dramatically worse performance. This negative conclusion is particularly important for systems that have only recently visible in global academic journals. The micro-level data suggest a delayed participation of social scientists and humanists in global science networks, with practical implications for predicting biological age from academic age. We calculate correlation coefficients, present contingency analysis of academic career stages with academic positions and age groups, and create a linear multivariate regression model. Our research suggests that in scientifically developing countries, academic age as a proxy for biological age should be used more cautiously than in advanced countries: ideally, it should be used only for STEMM disciplines.
Collapse
|
7
|
Data sharing platforms: instruments to inform and shape science policy on data sharing? Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04361-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
8
|
Abstract
AbstractIn solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the “gender solo research gap” among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through mean “individual solo publishing rates” found in “individual publication portfolios” constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database (“Polish Science Observatory”) with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N = 25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009–2018, including 18,900 solo articles.
Collapse
|
9
|
Larivière V, Pontille D, Sugimoto CR. Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor
Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES 2021. [DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Contributorship statements were introduced by scholarly journals in the late 1990s to provide more details on the specific contributions made by authors to research papers. After more than a decade of idiosyncratic taxonomies by journals, a partnership between medical journals and standards organizations has led to the establishment, in 2015, of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), which provides a standardized set of 14 research contributions. Using the data from Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals over the 2017–2018 period (N = 30,054 papers), this paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions. It also assesses whether some contributions are more likely to be performed in conjunction with others and examines how the new taxonomy provides greater insight into the gendered nature of labor division. The paper concludes with a discussion of results with respect to current issues in research evaluation, science policy, and responsible research practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent Larivière
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec (Canada)
- Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec (Canada)
| | - David Pontille
- Centre de sociologie de l’innovation, Mines ParisTech - CNRS UMR 9217, Paris (France)
| | - Cassidy R. Sugimoto
- School of Informatics, Computing and Engineering, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana (USA)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Morgan AC, Way SF, Hoefer MJD, Larremore DB, Galesic M, Clauset A. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2021; 7:7/9/eabd1996. [PMID: 33627417 PMCID: PMC7904257 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
Across academia, men and women tend to publish at unequal rates. Existing explanations include the potentially unequal impact of parenthood on scholarship, but a lack of appropriate data has prevented its clear assessment. Here, we quantify the impact of parenthood on scholarship using an extensive survey of the timing of parenthood events, longitudinal publication data, and perceptions of research expectations among 3064 tenure-track faculty at 450 Ph.D.-granting computer science, history, and business departments across the United States and Canada, along with data on institution-specific parental leave policies. Parenthood explains most of the gender productivity gap by lowering the average short-term productivity of mothers, even as parents tend to be slightly more productive on average than nonparents. However, the size of productivity penalty for mothers appears to have shrunk over time. Women report that paid parental leave and adequate childcare are important factors in their recruitment and retention. These results have broad implications for efforts to improve the inclusiveness of scholarship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison C Morgan
- Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
| | - Samuel F Way
- Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Michael J D Hoefer
- Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Daniel B Larremore
- Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
- BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
| | | | - Aaron Clauset
- Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
- BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
- Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA
| |
Collapse
|