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 […]
Measuring impact was a key feature of the just-released Research Education Framework in the UK. But ‘impact’ isn’t as fair a measurement as we could hope.
Consciously we might be talking about the impending sustainability crisis, but unconsciously we find ways to actually maintain the status quo.
In a conclusion to his two earlier articles on post-publication peer review, Andy Tattersall argues that while new ways to measure scholarly value may not be perfect yet, it’s still high time to start introducing them more widely.
Behavioral scientists have seized on social media and their massive data sets as a way to quickly and cheaply figure out what people are thinking and doing. But some of those tweets and thumbs ups can be misleading.
It’s not necessarily the type of peer review that makes an academic article scholarly, argues Christoper Sampson, but the transparency of how the conclusions were reached.
Although universities and funding bodies pay lip-service to the importance of multi-discipline research, a physicist and an anthropologist argue there is a long way to go before the reality matches the rhetoric.
Looking specifically at Australia, the author of the book on research integrity wonders how rampant plagiarizing and fabricating may be among researchers.
The author of a book on research ethics for social scientists suggests that issues such as antagonism with university review boards and new complexities introduced by Big Data can make integrity a sometime elusive quality.