1,720,956 research outputs found
Research on Research registry and hub: promoting practices that improve the way we do science
No full textBackground: Research on Research (RoR), referred also as metascience, critically examines research practice. The rapid growth of RoR evidence highlights the need for funders and research organisations to work collaboratively to increase sharing evidence, decrease risk of duplication and research waste, and ultimately lead to better implementation of research. To address these needs, the RoR registry and community hub was established in 2021 to bring together national and international RoR communities and thus strengthen the impact of this evolving discipline within the broader research ecosystem. The RoR registry and hub facilitates collaborative efforts among stakeholders dedicated to refining research practices. It aims to enhance the visibility of RoR studies, thus enabling the formation of research partnerships and promoting effective dissemination of evidence. This paper provides a comprehensive account of the registry's development and outlines the strategic activities implemented to drive its adoption within the research community. Methods: we utilised multiple methods to develop, grow and maintain the RoR registry. These consist of: a review of registries; creation of an advisory group; development of a web-based online registry of projects; conducting an online survey one year after launch to evaluate the performance of the RoR registry and hub; running two online events to first launch the registry and to showcase research registered on the platform; establishing Chatter sessions (online webinars on research on research topics); dissemination activities to promote the registry through publications and collaborations with publishers; and generating materials throughout the time the registry has been operating that reach multiple audiences. Results: the development of the registry took place between January 2020 and June 2021. The scope of registries that were available at the time informed the contents of the registry and especially, the questions that are asked at registration, ensuring a useful and still pragmatic mechanism to register work. An advisory board of experts provided strategic advice during the development phase. In parallel, a brand concept for the RoR registry and RoR team was co-developed. A video to explain the aim of the registry was co-created with a science communicator. An online launch event for the RoR registry and hub in June 2021 announced the registry to relevant communities (ror-hub.org) where a panel of experts discussed research on research and the role of this activity in the research ecosystem. A series of online webinars (Chatter sessions) were set up after the launch event where presenters led a discussion on topics of interest to the community, invited reflection and encouraged adoption of evidence to improve practice. The online evaluation survey of the registry and chatter sessions asked communities of interest about usefulness of the registry, benefits and challenges to engaging with the website and ways to increase its uptake. Forty-seven responses to the online survey were received. Five themes extracted through thematic analysis were: 1: Chatter sessions (two subthemes: management and topic coverage) 2: Registry outputs 3: Opportunities for improvement and collaboration 4: Promoting the registry 5: Reasons for not interacting with the registry. Findings of the evaluation highlighted the need for clearer communication about Chatter sessions with more notice and post-session materials, as well as more diverse topics like AI and bias in research. Members suggested improvements to the registry itself, including better promotion, simpler study entry, and more engaging content like mini blogs to encourage wider use. Finally, while many members found the registry through word-of-mouth, lack of time and awareness were cited as the main barriers to having greater interaction.In May 2024, the RoR team organised an online research festival, ‘AI and research: a promising relationship?’, to celebrate the registry's first three years. The festival included a panel discussion on the role of artificial intelligence in research, including whether AI could reduce research bureaucracy and how AI could impact on research integrity and presentations from projects added to the registry. 107 participants from organisations in 28 countries, including research funders, universities, charities, hospitals and publishers worldwide logged on to the festival sessions, provided highly positive feedback on the relevance and usefulness of the topics discussed, the discussion and presentations. Reflections: this paper presents the development of the RoR registry and community hub, describing the process from initial idea to launch, subsequent evaluation and continuous dissemination to encourage its use for best research practices. The highlights of the virtual research festival hosted by the RoR team, which focused on the intersection of AI and research, showed the multiple ways in which the community around the registry has been established and how it is contributing to the research ecosystem. The next steps for the registry and hub include expansion of the registry by partnering with organisations conducting research on research activity; developing strategies to attract more users to the registry; and encourage active participation within the community hub, targeting outreach and continuously analysing the impact by tracking collaborations, measuring changes in research quality, or surveying users to gather feedback on the platform's effectiveness.<br/
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
No full textBackground Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017–2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/ transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Conclusions Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
