1,721,220 research outputs found
Knowledge as Public Property : The Societal Relevance of Scientific Research
No full textUniversities are funded by public means to a large extend. It’s reasonable to expect that society benefits from the results. For scientific research this means that it should at least have a potential societal impact. Universities and individual investigators must explicitly consider the societal relevance of their research activities. And also report on it explicitly. Core questions are: ‘Do we do the right things?’ and ‘Do we do them right?’ This implies that next to indicators of scientific quality, attention should be given to indicators of societal relevance. This dual aim is placed in the context of current evaluation practices of academical research. A proposal for 12 indicators of societal relevance is formulated, focussing on both social-cultural value and economic value. Examples given mainly concern the health and life sciences. The paper ends by discussing the central challenges in evaluating the societal relevance of scientific research
Replication Research Series-Paper 2: Empirical research must be replicated before its findings can be trusted
Full text linkFostering responsible research practices is a shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders
Full text link
Invited Commentary on "investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman's 'Survey 2: Research Misconduct' Questionnaire"
Full text linkGoing Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Injury risk in downhill skiing results from a etiological case. control study conducted among Dutch skiers
No full text- …
