Knowledge Exchange Openness Profile – Knowledge Exchange

“As part of our work on Open Scholarship, we are working to raise awareness of the lack of recognition in current evaluation practice and work towards a possible solution; through development of an ‘Openness Profile’…

Part of KE’s work on Open Scholarship aims to enhance the evaluation of research and researchers. This currently does not cover recognition of non-academic contributions to make Open Scholarship work, such as activities to open up and curate data for re-use, or making research results findable and available. Our approach is to raise more awareness on the lack of recognition in current evaluation practice and work towards a possible solution, through the development of an ‘Openness Profile’.

The KE Open Scholarship Research Evaluation task & finish group works on the awareness issue, listing all academic and non-academic contributions that are essential to Open Scholarship and should be recognised when evaluating research. The group also works on the Openness Profile, a tool that is meant to allow evaluation of currently ignored contributions that are essential for Open Scholarship. For the development of the Openness Profile we seek involvement of various key stakeholders and alignment with current identifiers such as DOI and ORCID iD.

By demonstrating the immaturity of current research evaluation practice, and by developing the Openness Profile tool, KE supports researchers as well as non-researchers to get credit for all their contributions that make Open Scholarship possible. Our ambition is that recognition of these essential activities becomes part of standard research evaluation routine….”

ScienceMatters

“ScienceMatters is a scientific online publishing platform. The team behind ScienceMatters is also behind the EUREKA platform. After launching in 2016, ScienceMatters has operated multiple journals and covers all aspects of science publishing. In the same year the company was endorsed by the European Commission. It has 24 scientific advisory board members chaired by the Nobel laureate Prof. Tom Südhof and around 600 editorial board members from some of the best institutes around the world, such as Harvard University, Stanford University, ETH and the Max-Planck Institute….

All published content, including raw data is freely available and is being archived and indexed. By making science open and accessible, ScienceMatters ensures efficient communication and reproducibility of scientific data….

EUREKA is a scientific review and rating platform fuelled by the EUREKA token from EUREKA Blockchain Solutions GmbH. Blockchain has the capacity to open science and make research findings immutable, transparent and decentralised. EUREKA revolutionises the scientific publishing and reviewing process by making it more efficient and fair using the EUREKA token to compensate all parties involved. Scientific discoveries can now be openly rated and rewarded based on the quality of the research….”

Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): United States End-of-Term Report 2015–2017

“The third United States national action plan [for open government] was more ambitious than its predecessors, leading to major advances in fiscal transparency, open science, and police data. However, about a third of the plan’s commitments saw limited implementation by the end of the action plan. There were also notable regressions in certain areas, such as e-petitions and transparency in the extractives sector. …

The highlights of the plan include outstanding improvements in fiscal transparency and open science. Other major results include better access to educational resources, police data, and climate data….” 

In the table on pp. 8-10, see row 20 on open science, 21 on open data, and 42 on open climate data.

What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists | SpringerLink

Abstract:  This paper analyses the interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and its relevance for academics’ work. Based on a survey of 705 members of the German Economic Association (GEA), we find a strong interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and relevance where a journal’s perceived relevance has a stronger effect on its reputation than vice versa. Moreover, past journal ratings conducted by the Handelsblatt and the GEA directly affect journals’ reputation among German economists and indirectly also their perceived relevance, but the effect on reputation is more than twice as large as the effect on perceived relevance. In general, citations have a non-linear impact on perceived journal reputation and relevance. While the number of landmark articles published in a journal (as measured by the so-called H-index) increases the journal’s reputation, an increase in the H-index even tends to decrease a journal’s perceived relevance, as long as this is not simultaneously reflected in a higher Handelsblatt and/or GEA rating. This suggests that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles. We also identify significant differences in the views on journal relevance and reputation between different age groups.

Impact of Social Sciences – Empirical analysis reveals significant discrepancy between journal reputation and perceived relevance in economics.

“Using survey data on the evaluations of 150 economics journals, a recent study explored the relationship between economics journals’ reputation and perceived relevance amongst economists working in the field. Justus Haucap shares some of the headline findings from the analysis based on the survey data. The findings suggest that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles….”

AC 11: Open Access to Research

An undated description of what it takes to earn points for open access under the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) program. Excerpt: “Institutions earn the maximum of 2 points available for this credit by having an open access policy that meets the criteria above covering the entire campus. Partial points are available if some, but not all, of the institution’s research­producing divisions (e.g. schools, colleges, departments) are covered by an open access policy. For example, an institution with an open access policy covering 2 of its 6 colleges that produce research would earn 1 point (half of the points available for this credit)….”

 

 

AC 11: Open Access to Research

An undated description of what it takes to earn points for open access under the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) program. Excerpt: “Institutions earn the maximum of 2 points available for this credit by having an open access policy that meets the criteria above covering the entire campus. Partial points are available if some, but not all, of the institution’s research­producing divisions (e.g. schools, colleges, departments) are covered by an open access policy. For example, an institution with an open access policy covering 2 of its 6 colleges that produce research would earn 1 point (half of the points available for this credit)….”