High Cost of Bias: Diminishing Marginal Returns on NIH Grant Funding to Institutions
A study suggesting that implicit biases and social prestige mechanisms (e.g., the Matthew effect) have a powerful impact on where NIH grant dollars go and the net return on taxpayers investments. They support evidence-based changes in funding policy geared towards a more equitable, more diverse and more productive distribution of federal support for scientific research.
Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the Choir or Singing from the Rooftops?
Asking whether Twitter allows scientists to promote their findings primarily to other scientists ("inreach"), or whether it can help them reach broader, non-scientific audiences ("outreach"). Results should encourage scientists to invest in building a social media presence for scientific outreach.
In the 1990s, the Internet offered a horizon from which to imagine what society could become, promising autonomy and self-organization next to redistribution of wealth and collectivized means of production. While the former was in line with the dominant ideology of freedom, the latter ran contrary to the expanding enclosures in capitalist globalization.
Does Bibliometric Research Confer Legitimacy to Research Assessment Practice? a Sociological Study of Reputational Control, 1972-2016
A growing gap exists between an academic sector with little capacity for collective action and increasing demand for routine performance assessment by research organizations and funding agencies. This gap has been filled by database providers. By selecting and distributing research metrics, these commercial providers have gained a powerful role in defining de-facto standards of research excellence without being challenged by expert authority.
A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions
Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs. Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of these distributions and the variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals. Although there are differences among journals across the spectrum of JIFs, the citation distributions overlap extensively, demonstrating that the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF. We propose that this methodology be adopted by all journals as a move to greater transparency, one that should help to refocus attention on individual pieces of work and counter the inappropriate usage of JIFs during the process of research assessment.
Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?
This paper investigates the amount of academic service performed by female versus male faculty. We use 2014 data from a large national survey of faculty at more than 140 institutions as well as 2012...
How Persistent Identifiers Can Save Scientists Time
Persistent identifiers (PIDs) provide unique keys for people, places, and things, which supports the research process by facilitating search, discovery, recognition, and collaboration. This article reviews the main PIDs used in research (DOIs, ORCIDs, ...), as well as demonstrating how they are being used, and how, in combination, they can increase trust in research and the research infrastructure.
Embezzlement of Research Funds Is a Problem, Investigators Say
A "significant number" of fraud cases involving research funds and academia have been uncovered in recent years, including professional exchanges which never actually took place, or projects that never came to fruition.