Evaluative Inquiry III: Mixing methods for evaluating research

Critiques on research metrics have produced an unhelpful divide between quantitative and qualitative research methods. In this blogpost, we explain why research evaluation can benefit from the strengths of both.

Tjitske Holtrop, Laurens Hessels and Ad Prins • August 21, 2020

Consensus and dissensus in ‘mappings’ of science for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

A variety of ‘mappings’ of research on SDGs are being developed. A recent study shows that there are stark disagreements across some of these bibliometric ‘mappings’, raising concerns about their robustness. I argue here that this is due to different interpretations of the science relevant to SDGs.

Ismael Ràfols • August 10, 2020

The Book That Changed My Notion of Work

This summer season, we are publishing a series of book reviews. This time, our colleague Juan shares with us a book that is very close to his heart, and which had an influence on how he sees the idea of work.

Juan Pablo Bascur Cifuentes • August 07, 2020

Honest signaling in academic publishing

Scientific publishing has become a game between scientists and journals. Scientists try to convince the journals to publish their papers, while journals try to filter-out low-quality papers while being overwhelmed with too many submissions. Is there a smarter way? Honest signaling may be the key.

Leo Tiokhin • July 22, 2020

Evaluative Inquiry II: Evaluating research in context

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.

Tjitske Holtrop, Laurens Hessels and Ad Prins • July 20, 2020

Survey: Doing science in times of COVID-19

We are conducting a new study to understand how science is communicated during the coronavirus pandemic. All academic researchers, whether they are studying COVID-19 or not, are invited to undertake our survey

Karlijn Roex and Giovanni Colavizza • July 13, 2020

A-TEAM: A stands for a very challenging job

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.

Zeynep Anli, Clara Calero-Medina and Andrea Reyes Elizondo • July 09, 2020

The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020

At CWTS, we have just released a new edition of our Leiden Ranking. In this post, the core members of the Leiden Ranking team provide a quick update and illustrate some of the insights provided by the ranking.

Ludo Waltman, Zeynep Anli, Clara Calero-Medina, Mark Neijssel, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Nees Jan van Eck and Martijn Visser • July 08, 2020

Could pre-Covid-19 research into coronaviruses have been otherwise? Episode one: Careers

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.

Sarah Rose Bieszczad, Jochem Zuijderwijk and Thed van Leeuwen • July 07, 2020