“A number of researchers have analysed various selection methods and suggested that incorporating randomness has advantages over the current system, such as reducing the bias that research routinely shows plagues grant-giving, and improving diversity among grantees1.”
“Contributions to open science and open access were considered the least important aspects of academic work for researcher assessment among a list of aspects presented to respondents by the EUA, the association reported on 22 October. Only 38 per cent of 197 institutional respondents considered open science and open access “important” or “very important” to their evaluations. Thirty-six per cent attributed little or no importance to these aspects of academic work.”
Source : Open science not a priority in evaluation, survey finds – Research Professional News
“Networking, attending conferences and delivering lectures should give your ideas an edge, help you to disseminate your research, and result in higher quality papers that get more citations. And the fastest way to do all of these things in person is to fly. But even when accounting for department, position and gender, we found no relationship between how much academics travel and their total citation count or their hIa (a version of h-index adjusted for academic age).”
Source : Do the best academics fly more? | Impact of Social Sciences
« Last week, development studies journal Third World Quarterly published an article that, by many common metrics used in academia today, will be the most successful in its 38-year history. The paper has, in a few days, already achieved a higher Altmetric Attention Score than any other TWQ paper. By the rules of modern academia, this is a triumph. The problem is, the paper is not.The article, “The case for colonialism”, is a travesty, the academic equivalent of a Trump tweet, clickbait with footnotes ».
Source : Impact of Social Sciences – Clickbait and impact: how academia has been hacked
© 2024 no-Flux
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
