Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
There has been much discussion over how useful citation metrics, like Google Scholar’s H-index, really are and to what extent they can be gamed. Specifically there appears to be concern over the practice of self-citation as it varies widely between disciplines. So what should academics make of self-citations? Referring back to our Handbook on Maximising the Impact of Your Research, the Public Policy Group assess the key issues and advise that self-citations by researchers and teams are a perfectly legitimate and relevant aspect of disciplinary practice. But individuals should take care to ensure their own self-citation rate is not above the average for their particular discipline.
The perceived importance of a scientific paper should reflect the deepest wisdom of the scientific community, argues Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, rather than the judgments of three anonymous peer reviewers. So where does that leave ‘impact factor’?
Make an impact! make an impact! Early career social scientists here that refrain all the time. Gemma Sou cast around for a way to give her colleagues a voice in that quest, and hit upon podcasts.
Trying to measure the benefits of scientific research using traditional business-oriented metrics may not be the best tool in our shed, argues Michael White.
Three economists who used federal funding to research highly theoretical work on game theory and auctions are being honored with Golden Goose Awards for the highly practical application of their work that enabled the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to auction off the nation’s telecommunications spectrum in a way that maximized fairness and efficiency in the marketplace.
There are ways to learn about the impact of the all the collateral material that signify an academic career. If only there were some sort of ‘ultimate guide’ to show how …
David Takeuchi argues that even if the FIRST act doesn’t pass, it is clear that U.S. politicians are demanding more of a say in federally funded research. While a push to ensure research remains relevant can be a good thing, scientists and politicians must not forget that initial outcomes do not constitute substantive evidence. Scientific integrity and replication shouldn’t have to be sacrificed in order to meet political time frames.
The disparity between academics’ perception of the impact of their research and the opinions of Australian policymakers was recently underlined by a team of researchers from the University of Queensland who undertook cross-sectional surveys and semi-structured interviews with social science academic researchers and personnel in policy-relevant roles in public sector agencies.