Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
The Risks Of Using Research-Based Evidence In Policymaking
With research-based evidence increasingly being seen in policy, we should acknowledge that there are risks that the research or ‘evidence’ used isn’t suitable or can be accidentally misused for a variety of reasons.
Our Academic-Industry ‘Research Sprints’ Can Solve Problems in 30 Days
Inspired by ‘design sprints’ a Google where projects could create a prototype in five days, the authors started doing ‘research sprints’ in 2015.
What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview
This article by Bent Flyvbjerg examines the misconceptions and strategic misrepresentations that routinely result in the implementation of projects for which there is inadequate justification, absorbing funds that could have been better spent elsewhere.
Surveys Provide Insight Into Three Factors That Encourage Open Data and Science
Over a 10-year period Carol Tenopir of DataONE and her team conducted a global survey of scientists, managers and government workers involved in broad environmental science activities about their willingness to share data and their opinion of the resources available to do so (Tenopir et al., 2011, 2015, 2018, 2020). Comparing the responses over that time shows a general increase in the willingness to share data (and thus engage in Open Science).
Maintaining Anonymity In Double-Blind Peer Review During The Age of Artificial Intelligence
The double-blind review process, adopted by many publishers and funding agencies, plays a vital role in maintaining fairness and unbiasedness by concealing the identities of authors and reviewers. However, in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data, a pressing question arises: can an author’s identity be deduced even from an anonymized paper (in cases where the authors do not advertise their submitted article on social media)?
Designing Research For Impact
Recent experiences have not been very positive. The vast majority of proposals seem to conflate impact with research dissemination (a heroic leap of faith – changing the world one seminar at a time), or to outsource impact to partners such as NGOs and thinktanks.
Involving patients – or abandoning them?
The Covid-19 pandemic seems to be subsiding into a low-level endemic respiratory infection – although the associated pandemics of fear and action […]
Hype Terms In Research: Words Exaggerating Results Undermine Findings
The claim that academics hype their research is not news. The use of subjective or emotive words that glamorize, publicize, embellish or exaggerate results and promote the merits of studies has been noted for some time and has drawn criticism from researchers themselves. Some argue hyping practices have reached a level where objectivity has been replaced by sensationalism and manufactured excitement. By exaggerating the importance of findings, writers are seen to undermine the impartiality of science, fuel skepticism and alienate readers.
