ORCID reviewer recognition for UKRI reviewers – UKRI

“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.

The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”

The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles and the way ahead

“Encouraging interim results of different vaccine trials reflect the speed, innovation and dedication that the research community has shown in its response to Covid-19. But the pandemic has also shone a spotlight on the inner workings of research, and in lots of ways—good and bad—has intensified scrutiny of how research is funded, practiced, disseminated and evaluated, and how research cultures can be made more open, inclusive and impactful.

 

The uncertain possibilities that flow from this moment follow a period in which concern has intensified over several long-standing problems, all linked to research assessment. As attention shifts from describing these problems, towards designing and implementing solutions, efforts are coalescing around the idea of responsible research assessment (RRA). This is an umbrella term for approaches to assessment which incentivise, reflect and reward the plural characteristics of high-quality research, in support of diverse and inclusive research cultures.

This working paper explores what RRA is, and where it comes from, by outlining fifteen initiatives that have influenced the content, shape and direction of current RRA debates. It goes on to describe some of the responses that these have elicited, with a particular focus on the role and contribution of research funders, who have more freedom and agency to experiment and drive change than many of the other actors in research systems.

The paper also presents the findings of a new survey of RRA policies and practices in the participant organisations of the Global Research Council (GRC)—most of which are national public funding agencies—with responses from 55 organisations worldwide….”

Home – Responsible Research Assessment – a virtual conference from the Global Research Council

“Around the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has reaffirmed the importance of international collaboration in research and innovation. The impact of research has become ever more apparent during the pandemic, and so there is a renewed urgency for funders to come together and reconsider how research is assessed and evaluated. 

At the GRC Responsible Research Assessment Conference 2020, participants will be invited to consider the existing sector-wide frameworks on responsible research assessment and have a global discussion on how funders can drive a positive research culture through research assessment criteria and processes. The discussions will reflect on how to support a diverse, inclusive and thriving research sector….”

Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

European Research Council pulls out of open-access plan

“The European Research Council (ERC) has withdrawn its support for a radical open-access initiative in Europe, known as Plan S, saying that it will follow its own path towards open access….

While the council is “still committed to implementing full and immediate open access”, it states that it wants to focus more on researchers’ needs – especially early-career researchers – as well as preserving equity among European countries, particularly those with more limited national financial support for research.

The main sticking point for the ERC over Plan S was cOAlition S’s stance on so-called “hybrid” journals….”

Statement on Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

“The extraordinary effort to speed the development of treatments and vaccines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into sharp relief the need for the global science community to share scientific data openly. As the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, NIH is addressing this need with a new NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing. This policy requires researchers to plan prospectively for managing and sharing scientific data generated with NIH funds. This policy also establishes the baseline expectation that data sharing is a fundamental component of the research process, which is in line with NIH’s longstanding commitment to making the research it funds available to the public….”

Data sharing policies of journals in life, health, and physical sciences indexed in Journal Citation Reports [PeerJ]

Abstract:  Many scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy.

Methods

From each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science’s 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals’ data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy.

Results

Of the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17–0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05–7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98–15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85–4.81]).

Conclusions

These findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers’ engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.

 

Winning Horizon 2020 with Open Science | Zenodo

“WHY Open Science in Horizon 2020?

Open Science (OS) offers researchers tools and workflows for transparency, reproducibility, dissemination and transfer of new knowledge. Ultimately, this can also have an impact on in research evaluation exercises, e.g. Research Excellence Framework (REF), set to demand greater “societal impact” in future, rather than just research output[1]. OS can also be an effective tool for research managers to transfer knowledge to society, and optimize the use and re-use by unforeseen collaborators. For funders, OS offers a better return on investment (ROI) for public funding, and underpins the EU Digital Agenda by measurably contributing to economic growth. This brief showcases why and how Open Science can optimize your Horizon 2020 proposal evaluation.

WHO is this “BRIEF” for?

This brief is developed through EC funding and specifically aimed at Horizon 2020 applicants and proposal writers seeking to comply with the Horizon 2020 Mandate (Grant Agreement article 29.1-6) and to optimize proposal evaluation and eventual societal impact of the resulting project.

HOW to use the “BRIEF”?

The text is NOT intended to be used verbatim as copy and paste contribution to your proposal. Instead, the brief presents suggested ways of formulating an impact section that answers the overarching political agendas and initiatives, as well as tips for ensuring that research results are effectively delivered to any users and the market place, across the various Horizon 2020 Pillars. The main text is generic, but some discipline-specific examples are included as examples, rather than covering all research fields. The footnotes also point to additional resources that will facilitate implementation to optimize project visibility and impact.

Testing Brief impact on Evaluation Process:
The brief was developed and tested with applicants of the funding calls below, and subsequently delivered through a series of training seminar series for Horizon 2020 National Contact Points (NCP) in Austia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland as part of FP7 FOSTER (Grant Agreement 612 425) Training Calendar….”

Research Assessment Policy | Templeton World Charity Foundation, Inc.

“Research Assessment Policy (With effect from 2021)

We do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions or in funding decisions.
For the purposes of research assessment, we consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) and a broad range of impact measures.
We make explicit the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and we expect applicants, grantees, and reviewers to respond to these criteria accordingly.
We expect Grantees that are research institutions to have a:

statement of commitment to implementing the DORA principles on their website – this should be prominent and accessible
plan for implementing the DORA principles, or a clear process in place for developing a plan (with a specified delivery date) 
process in place for monitoring and reporting on progress….”