Recommendation on the evaluation of individual researchers in the mathematical sciences

“Nothing (and in particular no semi-automatized pseudo-scientific evaluation that involves numbers or data) can replace evaluation by an individual who actually understands what he/she is evaluating. Furthermore, tools such as impact factors are clearly not helpful or relevant in the context of mathematical research….”

Open access research | Revista Pesquisa Fapesp

“Brazil stands out on the international landscape when it comes to open access, a movement launched in the early 2000s with the aim of making scientific output freely available online. According to data compiled by Spanish research group Scimago, 33.5% of the Brazilian articles indexed in the Scopus database in 2016 were published in journals whose content is free to read online as soon as it is published, under a model known as the “golden road.” This is the largest proportion among the 15 nations with the highest volume of scientific output recorded on Scopus. Brazil is also top of the list of nations with the highest number of open access scientific journals (see charts).”

Article visibility: journal impact factor and availability of full text in PubMed Central and open access

Abstract:  Both the impact factor of the journal and immediate full-text availability in Pubmed Central (PMC) have featured in editorials before.1-3 In 2004, the editor of the Cardiovascular Journal of Africa (CVJA) lamented, like so many others, the injustice of not having an impact factor, its validity as a tool for measuring science output, and the negative effect of a low perceived impact in drawing attention from publications from developing countries.1,4

Since then, after a selection process, we have been indexed by the Web of Science® (WoS) and Thomson Reuters (Philadelphia, PA, USA), and have seen a growing impact factor. In the case of PMC, our acceptance to this database was announced in 2012,2 and now we are proud that it is active and full-text articles are available dating back to 2009. The journal opted for immediate full open access (OA), which means that full-text articles are available on publication date for anybody with access to the internet.

Assessing Current Practices in Review, Tenure, and Promotion – #ScholCommLab

“One of the key components of workplace advancement at the university level are the review, promotion and tenure (RPT) packets that are typically submitted every other year by early career faculty. These guidelines and forms are considered to be of highest importance for all faculty, especially for early career faculty who need to demonstrate the value and impact of their work to the university and the broader scientific community. Quite often impact is equated with “impact factor,” leading many researchers to target a narrow range of journals at the expense of a broader societal considerations (such as the public’s right to access). The importance of RPT guidelines and forms makes them a natural place to effect change towards an opening of access to research (something both Canada and the US have been pushing for through federal policies and laws).

While we believe changes in RPT guidelines and forms may provide the impetus for behavioral change, leading to broader interest and adoption of open access principles, the reality is that very little is known about current RPT practices as they relate to questions of openness. This project seeks to examine the RPT process in the US and Canada in ways that can directly inform actions likely to translate into behavioural change and to a greater opening of research….”

Assessing Current Practices in Review, Tenure, and Promotion – #ScholCommLab

“One of the key components of workplace advancement at the university level are the review, promotion and tenure (RPT) packets that are typically submitted every other year by early career faculty. These guidelines and forms are considered to be of highest importance for all faculty, especially for early career faculty who need to demonstrate the value and impact of their work to the university and the broader scientific community. Quite often impact is equated with “impact factor,” leading many researchers to target a narrow range of journals at the expense of a broader societal considerations (such as the public’s right to access). The importance of RPT guidelines and forms makes them a natural place to effect change towards an opening of access to research (something both Canada and the US have been pushing for through federal policies and laws). While we believe changes in RPT guidelines and forms may provide the impetus for behavioral change, leading to broader interest and adoption of open access principles, the reality is that very little is known about current RPT practices as they relate to questions of openness. This project seeks to examine the RPT process in the US and Canada in ways that can directly inform actions likely to translate into behavioural change and to a greater opening of research. You can see our progress in data collection here.”

Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science – Teplitskiy – 2016 – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal’s academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

3 Reasons to Publish in Open Access Journals | ELISA Genie

“1. Great scientific discoveries stand alone and do not require the brand of a high impact journal to make it a great seminal publication that influences the field. If you work is good enough, your peers will recognize this and the same opportunities will open for you as would have opened if you published it elsewhere.

2. All data is good data: For many reasons projects just don’t work, whether it’s a technical reason, the tools researchers are using or previously published observations have been incorrect or partially correct. Publishing data in open access journals/platforms allows researchers to take a complete view of the field and not just a partial view due to restriction of data.

3. Impact factors are growing: In 2010 Nature Publishing group launched their own version of an open access journal called Nature Communications. Since it was launched Nature Communications has impressively acquired impact factor of 10.015, furthermore within the last year Cell Press has launched their own open access journal called Cell Reports and has attracted publications from some of the leading laboratories in world such as Doug Green and Alex Behrens and will surely publish a respectable impact factor within the coming months.Overall publishing in open access journals is critical for the future of science and will be the driving force behind the greatest human discovery….”

Open Access: Advocacy

“Widespread acceptance of open access has progressed more slowly than many advocates had hoped. One such advocate, Dr. Peter Suber, explains the barriers and misconceptions, and offers some strategic and practical advice….”

ATG Newschannel Original: The Passing of a Giant: Eugene Garfield Dies at 90 | Against The Grain

“The citation indexes and the Current Contents service became essential tools, not only in libraries but in research labs and technology companies across the globe….By having ready access to the tables of contents of core research journals available, researchers were easily able to mark those articles of key interest and then contact the authors for a copy of the article. Perhaps this can be seen today as a precursor to today’s Open Access movement, allowing for direct communication between researchers and their colleagues as well as potential developers….”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”