A5027294632- scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Research Data Management Practices
- Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Academic Writing and Publishing
- Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Health and Medical Education
- Eating Disorders and Behaviors
- Educational Research and Science Teaching
- Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Cancer Research and Treatment
- Higher Education Research Studies
- Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Biological Research and Disease Studies
- Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
- Cancer Risks and Factors
- Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Higher Education and Sustainability
- Human Resource and Talent Management
- Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Place Attachment and Urban Studies
King's College London
2016-2024
Taylor Wimpey (United Kingdom)
2024
Taylor and Francis (United Kingdom)
2024
Faculty of 1000 (United Kingdom)
2019-2024
Te Pūkenga
2023
Unitec Institute of Technology
2023
Faculty of 1000 (United States)
2018-2020
Development Initiatives
2019
Division of Program Coordination Planning and Strategic Initiatives
2016-2017
Wellcome Trust
2009-2015
This report presents the findings and recommendations of Independent Review Role Metrics in Research Assessment Management. The review was chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, supported an independent multidisciplinary group experts scientometrics, research funding, policy, publishing, university management administration. This has gone beyond earlier studies to take a deeper look at potential uses limitations metrics indicators. It explored use across different disciplines, assessed...
Key points As the number of authors on scientific publications increases, ordered lists author names are proving inadequate for purposes attribution and credit. A multi‐stakeholder group has produced a contributor role taxonomy use in publications. Identifying specific contributions to published research will lead appropriate credit, fewer disputes, disincentives collaboration sharing data code.
To compare expert assessment with bibliometric indicators as tools to assess the quality and importance of scientific research papers.Shortly after their publication in 2005, a cohort nearly 700 Wellcome Trust (WT) associated papers were assessed by reviewers; each paper was reviewed two WT reviewers. After 3 years, we compared this initial other measures impact.Shortly publication, 62 (9%) 687 determined describe at least 'major addition knowledge' -6 thought be 'landmark' papers. At an...
More evidence of the meaning and validity ALMs altmetrics, coupled with greater consistency transparency in their presentation, would enable research funders to explore potential value identify appropriate use cases.
CatSper1 and CatSper2 are two recently identified channel-like proteins, which show sperm specific expression patterns. Through targeted mutagenesis in the mouse, has been shown to be required for fertility, motility cAMP induced Ca2+ current sperm. Both channels resemble a single pore forming repeat from four voltage dependent /Na+ channel. However, neither or have function as cation when transfected into cells, singly conjunction. As units of gated form tetramer it suggested that known...
To investigate the feasibility of using research papers cited in clinical guidelines as a way to track impact particular funding streams or sources.In recent years, medical funders have made efforts enhance understanding their funded and provide evidence 'value' investments areas research. One most challenging evaluation is around on policy practice. In UK, National Institute Health Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, which bring together current high-quality diagnosis treatment problems....
As part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review is cited as a way to enable fuller scrutiny and transparency assessments around research. There are now many flavours in use across scholarly publishing, including where reviews fully attributable the reviewer named. This study examines whether there any evidence bias two areas common critique open, non-anonymous (named) – used post-publication, system operated by open-access publishing platform F1000Research. First,...
The peer review process is used throughout science but has often been criticized for being inconsistent, with decisions dependent on the peers who did reviewing. Much of decision inconsistency arises from differences between reviewers in terms their expertise, training and experience. Another source uncertainty within as they must make a single recommendation (e.g. 'Accept'), when may have wavered two 'Accept' or 'Reject'). We estimated size within-reviewer using post-review surveys at three...
Purpose Peer reviewer evaluations of academic papers are known to be variable in content and overall judgements but important publishing safeguards. This article introduces a sentiment analysis program, PeerJudge, detect praise criticism peer evaluations. It is designed support editorial management decisions reviewers the scholarly process for grant funding decision workflows. The initial version PeerJudge tailored reviews from F1000Research's open review platform....
<ns4:p>Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include escalating costs of and lower productivity, low public trust in researchers to report truth, lack diversity, poor community engagement, ethical over practices, irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise a subset open practices including access publication, data sharing absence restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms,...
An observational study of uncertainty in peer review
The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) uses 14 standard roles to specify scholarly contributions research publications. CRediT has been adopted by hundreds of journals and integrated into journal submission workflows. In 2022, was formalized as a the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Information Organization (NISO), providing sustained support system custodianship. Subsequently, forming Standing Committee aimed ensure inclusive transparent evolution enhance understanding adoption...
In 1996, the Wellcome Trust set up an annual competition to fund high-risk, non-obvious research in biomedical sciences, called Showcase awards. The evaluation at end of first year involved experiment assess how innovative awards were perceived be, comparison with a sample standard project grants. Expert panel members asked ‘risky’, ‘novel’, ‘speculative’, ‘adventurous’ and ‘innovative’ each five grants were. results showed that is fulfilling its objective supporting high risk also it...
Journals have long served as the dominant mechanism by which scholars made priority claims and disseminated their work to each other public. Over course of last few decades, these communication vehicles been increasingly metricized, one aspect a general effort measure, rank, rate quality research. When Journal Citation Reports was first published an addendum 1975 Science Index, it suggested using aggregated citation metrics – indicators journal use inform librarians in collection management...
<ns4:p>Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include escalating costs of and lower productivity, low public trust in researchers to report truth, lack diversity, poor community engagement, ethical over practices, irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise a set practices including open access publication, data sharing absence restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments...