The retraction of academic papers often functions as an indictment against a researcher’s reputation. Tim Kersjes argues that for retractions to function as an effective corrective to the scholarly record, they need shed this punitive reputation.
Drawing on a study of Crossref DOI data, Martin Eve finds evidence to suggest that the current standard of digital preservation could fall worryingly short of ensuring persistent accurate record of scholarly works.
Commenting on the trend for the politically motivated forensic scrutiny of the research records of academics, Till Bruckner argues that singling out individuals in this way has a chilling effect on academic freedom and distracts from efforts to address more important systemic issues in research integrity.
Kathryn Oliver discusses the recent launch of the United Kingdom’s Areas of Research Interest Database. A new tool that promises to provide a mechanism to link researchers, funders and policymakers more effectively collaboratively and transparently.
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)?
Considering a series of proposed policy changes by the National Institutes of Health, Micah Altman and Philip N. Cohen, argue they highlight wider systematic gaps in the evaluation of operational science policies and signal an urgent need to increase funding for metascience.
Researchers regularly observe gender differences in favor of men in various parts of academia, such as fewer women in senior academic positions, fewer publications, lower citations rates and lower funding of women. However, researchers also observe differences in favor of women, such as more women being elected in NAS, more favorable peer review and higher funding rates of women.
Here are five ways I have found Altmetrics to be useful beyond a simple numerical score and just telling us which journal papers are receiving attention.
Drawing on discussions with academics who have oriented their work around public engagement and social impact, Daniel Pearson suggests these academics present an opportunity to rethink the existing structures of reward and recognition in higher education. “We are, as a species, addicted to story,” says English professor Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. “Even when the […] Tom Burns, whose combination of play — and plays – with teaching in higher education added a light, collaborative and engaging model […] A 2024 report by the National Academies explores the latest advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology and their potential effects on economic productivity, job stability, and income inequality. It also highlights key research opportunities and data needs to help workers and policymakers adapt to the evolving AI landscape. In this post, co-authors Frank T. Piller, Tucker J. Marion, and Mahdi Srour reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “Generative […] During the final stages of editing the proofs for Artificial Intelligence and Work: Transforming Work, Organizations, and Society in an Age of Insecurity, […]
EXPLORE
Impact
Young Scholars Can’t Take the Field in Game of Academic Metrics
READ MORE
Canada’s Storytellers Challenge Seeks Compelling Narratives About Student Research
READ MORE
Tom Burns, 1959-2024: A Pioneer in Learning Development
READ MORE
Innovation
NAS Report Examines Nexus of AI and Workplace
READ MORE
When Do You Need to Trust a GenAI’s Input to Your Innovation Process?
READ MORE
The Authors of ‘Artificial Intelligence and Work’ on Future Risk
READ MORE
