We know that academic knowledge production happens in context, yet, when assessing research, we undervalue the influence of stakeholders and organizational contexts on academic output and impact. The second of four blogposts is on evaluating research in context.
As the A-TEAM, we thoroughly evaluate the data we collect, and aim to provide a consistent and transparent curation. What we do could also be described as that of a detective/archeologist/archivist: through bits and pieces of data we seek to unravel the scientific landscape.
Could coronavirus-related research (CRR) pre-Covid-19 have been otherwise? In this series we examine pre-pandemic publications in CRR, asking how issues of careers, funding, and geopolitics may have affected the state of knowledge in CRR. Ep.1: Careers.
Every day news outlets around the world play a central role in disseminating the latest COVID-19 research. In this post, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 findings on the news by applying state-of-the-art sentiment analysis and present some interesting preliminary results, stay tuned!
A trend in research evaluation is to include stakeholders as active partners in the evaluation process. In June, CWTS organized an online workshop to explore novel evaluation approaches and to identify possibilities and limitations for co-production in research evaluation.
Openness of the metadata of scientific articles is increasingly being discussed. In this blog post, Aaron Tay (SMU Libraries, Singapore Management University), Bianca Kramer (Utrecht University Library), and Ludo Waltman (CWTS, Leiden University) discuss the value of openly available abstracts.
Mainstream evaluation metrics tend to understand academic value as performance while missing other valuable elements of academic value trajectories. This first of four blogposts focuses on the concept of value of the Evaluative Inquiry’s approach to research evaluation.