Global Flow of Scholarly Publishing And Open Access | Elements | GeoScienceWorld

“More equitable alternatives are required, such as returning to the earlier model by which a research paper is not regarded as a for-profit commodity but as a public-serving good. However, there is a relatively simple, cost- and risk-free option: a majority of the journals in geochemistry have a green colour according to the SHERPA/RoMEO grading system (Fig. 1), indicating that pre-print and post-print articles submitted to journals can be archived in a repository. According to the Web of Science among the 885 articles published in Elements, only 56 were OA as Gold or Bronze (data accessed on 01/02/2020). The change started three years ago with an increase of up to 31% total OA articles in 2018. This change was mainly because author institutions required authors to publish articles as OA, and so paid for this….

Finally, in parallel to traditional journal publication, there is a clear role for self-archiving of peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts (post-print): the Green OA route. The policy of making research available to the wider public in some countries has essentially set up institutional repositories to do just this [e.g., the Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL) repository in France]. The Green route is cost-free for authors, and numerous platforms and collaborative tools for pre-prints (e.g., EarthArXiv) are available for researchers to pursue Green OA. However, the pre-print model remains little-known and is not being routinely used by geochemists. Another problem is that the current APC model has additional restrictions on the publication of research from developing countries where OA fees are beyond reach, resulting in authors seeking out the lower- or no-cost options found in “predatory journals”, i.e., those journals that lack the support from academic societies, use unvalidated review processes, and have a for-profit approach with little clear consideration for what is written. Unfortunately, there are ample opportunities to publish scientific research as OA papers in such journals. The publishing practices of these types of journal challenge the long-term future of full peer review and of publishing ethics. There is currently much discussion between professional and learned societies and academic publishers on this subject (e.g., the Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S project) (Wise and Estelle 2019). I encourage the geochemical community to be active; to consult and take action; and to prioritize our research with straightforward, open and rigorous peer review, and visibility…..”

DORA seeks nominations for the Advisory Board from North and South America – DORA

“DORA seeks nominations and self-nominations from North and South America to fill two open positions on our international Advisory Board.

The role of the advisory board is strategic in nature. It complements the work of the steering committee and provides globally-relevant strategic guidance for future DORA activities. Advisory board members serve a term of three years that can be renewed once. More information about the board and its operation can be found in DORA’s governance procedures.

To maintain the board’s geographic distribution, nominations at this time are limited to individuals from North America and South America. Nominations will be reviewed by the DORA steering committee. The ideal nominee will provide a balance to the experiences and strengths of the other advisory board members. Nominations and self-nominations from underrepresented and minoritized scholars and early career researchers are encouraged….”

DORA Community Call: Strategies for responsible research assessment in the Asia-Pacific region – DORA

“DORA is pleased to announce its first webinar for the Asia-Pacific region with the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group on Thursday, July 2 at 12:00 PM Australian Eastern Standard Time (10:00 AM China Standard Time). The webinar is open to all and will provide an update from DORA and offer ideas about strategies to implement responsible research assessment practices….”

Empathy and grit – not just publication records – should be considered in researcher assessment | Nature Index

“Attendees, more than half of whom were senior academics and section heads, were asked to nominate the most important skill of an effective researcher. The top answers were resilience, perseverance, curiosity, empathy, and flexibility – qualities that go far beyond what bibliometrics alone can measure.”

Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong

Abstract:  Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the impact factor. Arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles are often based on statistical considerations. The skewness of journal citation distributions typically plays a central role in these arguments. We present a theoretical analysis of statistical arguments against the use of the impact factor at the level of individual articles. Our analysis shows that these arguments do not support the conclusion that the impact factor should not be used for assessing individual articles. In fact, our computer simulations demonstrate the possibility that the impact factor is a more accurate indicator of the value of an article than the number of citations the article has received. It is important to critically discuss the dominant role of the impact factor in research evaluations, but the discussion should not be based on misplaced statistical arguments. Instead, the primary focus should be on the socio-technical implications of the use of the impact factor.

 

DORA statement on hiring, promotion, and funding decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic – DORA

“DORA calls on all universities and research institutions to:

Redefine their expectations for productivity in the wake of the present pandemic.
Communicate clearly to academics and researchers how they will modify research evaluation procedures for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

We applaud those that have already taken action (e.g. see: here). In a similar vein, DORA calls on research funders to reassure applicants that they will also take account of the productivity impact of the COVID-19 crisis….”

DORA statement on hiring, promotion, and funding decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic – DORA

“DORA calls on all universities and research institutions to:

Redefine their expectations for productivity in the wake of the present pandemic.
Communicate clearly to academics and researchers how they will modify research evaluation procedures for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

We applaud those that have already taken action (e.g. see: here). In a similar vein, DORA calls on research funders to reassure applicants that they will also take account of the productivity impact of the COVID-19 crisis….”

DORA’s first funder discussion: updates from Swiss National Science Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and the Dutch Research Council – DORA

“DORA launched a new virtual discussion series for public and private research funders on Wednesday, March 26. The goal of the series is to increase communication about research assessment reform by providing a space for funders to share and discuss new initiatives. We hope this will ultimately serve as a platform to accelerate the spread of good research assessment policies and practices.

Representatives from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Dutch Research Council, and Wellcome Trust provided updates on some of their pilot projects….”

GOOD PRACTICE IN RESEARCHER EVALUATION. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RESPONSIBLE EVALUATION OF A RESEARCHER IN FINLAND

“This is a recommendation for the responsible evaluation of a researcher. In this context, a researcher is a person who is a member of the teaching and research staff of a Finnish university or research institute or is primarily engaged in research or applying for research funding. This recommendation has been drafted from the point of view of an individual researcher evaluation. The same principles should be followed when evaluating research organizations, research units, and research in a broader context. The recommendation is recommended to use in conjunction with The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity’s (TENK) template for a researcher’s curriculum vitae. This recommendation was accepted on 4th of February, 2020, by a working group set up by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) in October 2018….”