scholarly journals NOR-CAM – A framework for assessment of academic careers in the Open Science Era

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finn-Eirik Johansen
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Academic Careers ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Assessment And Evaluation ◽  
Guiding Principles

See RECORDING. A working group appointed by Universities Norway (UHR) was mandated to recommend guiding principles for the assessment and evaluation of research(ers) in light of the transition to Open Science. In February 2021 the working group delivered their report, which includes a guide for research assessment. Johansen will give a brief introduction to NOR-CAM.

scholarly journals Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barend Mons ◽  
Cameron Neylon ◽  
Jan Velterop ◽  
Michel Dumontier ◽  
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Guiding Principles

scholarly journals The Leiden Manifesto under review: what libraries can learn from it

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 324-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Coombs ◽  
Isabella Peters
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
European Association ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Digital Products ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Wide Range

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a critical discussion of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries already engaged in bibliometric practices. It offers practical recommendations based on the work of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) Working Group on Metrics. This work is in the beginning phase and summarizes literature on the topic, as well as the experiences of the members of the Working Group. The discussion reflects today's growing popularity of (quantitative) research assessment which is seen in enthusiasts introducing new metrics (i.e. altmetrics) and by critics demanding responsible metrics that increase objectivity and equity in evaluations. Design/methodology/approachThis paper is the result of the Working Group on Metrics of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) that critically discussed the practicality of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries. FindingsFull compliance with the Manifesto is time-consuming, expensive and requires a significant increase in bibliometric expertise with respect to both staffing and skill level. Despite these apparent disadvantages, it is recommended that all libraries embrace the Manifesto’s principles. To increase practicality, it is advised that libraries collaborate with researchers, management and other libraries at home and around the world to jointly design and provide services that can be reused within the library community. Originality/valueLibraries have increasingly been confronted with questions about research assessment, responsible metrics and the role of digital products in evaluations and funding decisions. Although a wide range of recommendations and initiatives are available (e.g. DORA San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), many recommendations are not straightforward enough to be implemented from a library perspective. This paper provides assistance for libraries to implement these principles by acknowledging the heterogeneous backgrounds the libraries may stem from.

scholarly journals FAIR Forever? Accountabilities and Responsibilities in the Preservation of Research Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Amy Currie ◽  
William Kilbride
Keyword(s):  
Community Of Practice ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Digital Preservation ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Fair Principles ◽  
Science And Research

Digital preservation is a fast-moving and growing community of practice of ubiquitous relevance, but in which capability is unevenly distributed. Within the open science and research data communities, digital preservation has a close alignment to the FAIR principles and is delivered through a complex specialist infrastructure comprising technology, staff and policy. However, capacity erodes quickly, establishing a need for ongoing examination and review to ensure that skills, technology, and policy remain fit for changing purpose. To address this challenge, the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) conducted the FAIR Forever study, commissioned by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Sustainability Working Group and funded by the EOSC Secretariat Project in 2020, to assess the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the preservation of research data across EOSC, and the feasibility of establishing shared approaches, workflows and services that would benefit EOSC stakeholders. This paper draws from the FAIR Forever study to document and explore its key findings on the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the preservation of FAIR data in EOSC, and to the preservation of research data more broadly. It begins with background of the study and an overview of the methodology employed, which involved a desk-based assessment of the emerging EOSC vision, interviews with representatives of EOSC stakeholders, and focus groups with digital preservation specialists and data managers in research organizations. It summarizes key findings on the need for clarity on digital preservation in the EOSC vision and for elucidation of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities to mitigate risks of data loss, reputation, and sustainability. It then outlines the recommendations provided in the final report presented to the EOSC Sustainability Working Group. To better ensure that research data can be FAIRer for longer, the recommendations of the study are presented with discussion on how they can be extended and applied to various research data stakeholders in and outside of EOSC, and suggest ways to bring together research data curation, management, and preservation communities to better ensure FAIRness now and in the long term.

scholarly journals The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
Sabine Kleinert ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Mai Har Sham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Responsible Research ◽  
Advance Knowledge ◽  
Broad Approach

The primary goal of research is to advance knowledge. For that knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous and transparent at all stages of design, execution and reporting. Initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto have led the way bringing much needed global attention to the importance of taking a considered, transparent and broad approach to assessing research quality. Since publication in 2012 the DORA principles have been signed up to by over 1500 organizations and nearly 15,000 individuals. Despite this significant progress, assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded (i.e., their careers are advanced) for behavior that leads to trustworthy research. The HKP have been developed with the idea that their implementation could assist in how researchers are assessed for career advancement with a view to strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

scholarly journals Corporate and State Responsibilities in Conflict-Affected Areas

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radu Mares
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Foundational Principle ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Context Specific

Some of the emblematic cases of corporate-related infringements of human rights have appeared in unstable and violence-ridden zones, including armed conflict and other contexts with lower levels of conflict, internal disturbances, widespread violence and latent tensions. Businesses have been involved in different ways, as direct perpetrators, accomplices or mere trading partners. This article tracks the issue of conflict-affected areas as elaborated in the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights during the Special Representative’s mandate (2005–2011) and the post-mandate period of 2011–2014, especially by looking at the UN Working Group on business and human rights and the emerging National Action Plans. Conflict was a theme of high priority during John Ruggie’s UN mandate but lost visibility in the post-2011 period. What could explain this change? This article analyses in depth the relevant provisions in the UN Guiding Principles, particularly Principle 7, and how stakeholders have responded to the Special Representative’s policy recommendations. The results of this analysis indicate that, contrary to appearances, Principle 7 is not merely an operational, context-specific principle limited to conflict-affected zones where the host state is incapacitated by conflict; rather Principle 7 should be seen as a foundational principle about gross abuses, about the responsibilities of home states to act preventively and reactively when ‘their’ companies are involved in gross abuses in conflict-affected areas and beyond.

scholarly journals We’re all in this together: recommendations from the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s Open Science Working Group

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradford W Hesse ◽  
David E Conroy ◽  
Dominika Kwaśnicka ◽  
Molly E Waring ◽  
Eric Hekler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Working

scholarly journals Recognition & Rewards in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Huijpen ◽  
Per Pippin Aspaas
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Career Paths ◽  
Video Recording ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Conference Paper ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Made In

In this episode, Kim Huijpen from the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) tells about the programme following the publication of Room for Everyone's Talent, a position paper aiming for a wholescale overhaul of the practices of research assessment in the Netherlands. The podcast interview was made in conjunction with the 16th Munin Conference on Scholarly publishing in November 2021 (see abstract and video recording of Kim Huijpen's conference paper). The nation-wide follow-up programme, named Recognition & Rewards, is coordinated by Kim Huijpen. In her dialogue with stakeholder at Dutch institutions, she often meets dilemmas and concerns that are familiar from similar debates in other countries. Nevertheless, more and more institutions are now implementing the the principles and guidelines laid out in the 2019 position paper, thereby stimulating the growth of open science practices and the diversification of career paths in Dutch academia. The on-going process can be followed on several platforms, including: Twitter: https://twitter.com/recogrewards?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/recognition-rewards/Youtube: Recognition & Rewards playlist Newsletter: https://recognitionrewards.nl/blog/newsletter-recognition-rewards/DORA Repository: Updated information on the Dutch Recognition & Rewards Programme  See also a recap of the Recognition & Rewards Festival (January 2021) and recorded webinars on rewarding teaching (November 2020). A summary of The Dutch Recognition & Rewards Programme can also be found in the DORA Repository

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document