scholarly journals UKRN Position on Responsible Research Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Responsible Research

UKRN position statement on responsible research evaluation. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

Investigating Assessment Standards in the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-94
Author(s):  
Sabrina Petersohn ◽  
Sophie Biesenbender ◽  
Christoph Thiedig
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Research Information ◽  
Evaluation Procedures ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Assessment Standards ◽  
Responsible Research

The following contribution asks which role standards for research information play in practices of responsible research evaluation. The authors develop the notion of assessment standards against the background of functional standard classifications. The development of semantic and procedural assessment standards in the national research evaluation exercises of the Netherlands, Great Britain, and Italy are investigated using a qualitative case study design. A central finding of the study is that assessment standards incorporate conflicting values. A continuous tradeoff between the transparency of evaluation procedures and provided information as well as the variety of research outputs is being counterbalanced in all countries by compensating a higher level of semantic standardization with lower degrees of procedural standardization.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Supporting Research Transparency among Research Students

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Research Students

UKRN position statement on supporting research transparency among research students. Written by the UKRN Steering Group. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA).

scholarly journals UKRN Position on COVID-19 Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on COVID-19 research. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals Ethical challenges around the use of social media data: Views of researchers and research ethics committee members

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Samuel ◽  
Gemma Derrick ◽  
Thed N van Leeuwen
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Personal Ethics ◽  
Responsible Research

This paper reports the presence of a problematic “personal ethics” approach to decision making by social media scholars who use data from general audience social media platforms for their research. When new methodological tools like social media (SM) research are developed, differing norms of what constitutes ethically responsible research clash. Mining data from SM platforms such as Facebook, is of particular interest to scholars in the research evaluation field and the availability of this data has contributed to the rapid development of the field over recent years. In the research evaluation field, there has been no discussion about the ethical considerations associated with using data from academic social media platforms. Instead, SM platforms are widely considered a general source of seemingly publicly available data, and therefore free for public use. Recent behaviours of researchers and their affiliated entrepreneurial partners such as Cambridge Analytica highlight that despite dominant thought to the contrary, the use of SM data is not ethically-free, nor should it be free from ethical scrutiny. Unfortunately, the nature of SM data is not contingent with traditional notions of consent, privacy, risk to participants, nor the freedom to withdraw. This paper reports uses data from UK higher education stake holders which consider the ethical boundaries of SM data, thereby focusing on how these academic governing bodies are failing to consistently promote a community-wide norm relating to the used of SM data. This leads to the application of ad hoc ethical definitions, or the promotion of the ability of researchers to apply a sense of “personal ethics” about SM use, that is not necessarily in line with the nature of SM data. As such, this paper offers a number of recommendations for the academic community to reflect on the ethical dimensions associated with responsible research behaviour relative to the use of SM data.

scholarly journals Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Vincent Larivière ◽  
David Pontille ◽  
Cassidy R. Sugimoto
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Labor Division ◽  
Scientific Labor ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Number Of Authors

Contributorship statements were introduced by scholarly journals in the late 1990s to provide more details on the specific contributions made by authors to research papers. After more than a decade of idiosyncratic taxonomies by journals, a partnership between medical journals and standards organizations has led to the establishment, in 2015, of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), which provides a standardized set of 14 research contributions. Using the data from Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals over the 2017–2018 period ( N = 30,054 papers), this paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions. It also assesses whether some contributions are more likely to be performed in conjunction with others and examines how the new taxonomy provides greater insight into the gendered nature of labor division. The paper concludes with a discussion of results with respect to current issues in research evaluation, science policy, and responsible research practices.

scholarly journals UKRN Statement on Responsible Research Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reproducibility Network
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Responsible Research

UKRN Common Statements: Statement on Responsible Research Evaluation

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Meta-Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on meta-research. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Academic Publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on academic publishing. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals Overview of Development and Recent Trends in Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-108
Author(s):  
Yongming Wang
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Alternative Metrics

This paper is an overview of bibliometrics, a subfield of library and information science. It briefly explains what bibliometrics is and why it is important in research evaluation and impact analysis. It summarizes the latest development and trends over the past decade. Three major trends are identified and discussed. They are alternative metrics, responsible use of bibliometrics and responsible research evaluation movement, and application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in bibliometrics practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document