There are a number of worldwide university rankings, which are often used as a guide for future education and career progression. These include, among others, the ranking of The Times Higher Education (THE), the QS World University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) , also known as the Shanghai Ranking, and the very recently launched U-Multirank, funded by the EU. While some few universities from Western Europe and North America still dominate most of these rankings, there is a trend for the emergence of young universities from newly-industrialised countries such as China and India.
Welcome to this special issue of the EuroScientist focusing on the evolving solution for research evaluation! The very existence of scientific career progression hinges on researchers being judged by their peers. Yet, technology is bringing disruption in what was until now a well-oiled peer-review system. The upcoming generation of scientists is likely to be evaluated through an evolved versions of peer-review.
Do you love science but are unhappy with the culture in academia?
As a PhD student, postdoc or lab leader (PI), do you feel like your mental health may be suffering because of problems in the system?
Do you think your lab could be managed more efficiently?
In this theory-informed auto-ethnographic account, I relate my experience of participating in the EuroScience Open Forum Conference 2018 (ESOF). Gender equality was certainly on the agenda at ESOF, however, I argue that the manner in which gender equality was addressed at the conference is not only problematic but potentially counter-productive to the intended purpose of promoting women in research careers. If we keep 1) essentialising a presumed lack of confidence to women, 2) omitting men’s role in the reproduction of gender hierarchies in research from equality discussions, and 3) excluding gender scholars’ expertise from gender equality debates, I fear that women’s equal participation in academic research and leadership will remain a distant prospect in the future still.
Science fiction authors are a motley crew, which includes a small number of professional scientists but also many others with no particular background in science or technology. EuroScientist published a short story called The Blame Game by Ian McKinley, who is a scientist involved in the rather esoteric area of radioactive waste management. In this story, a number of experts caught up in the chaos resulting from sudden environmental collapse argue about the root cause. The bottom line is that that there are so many interacting factors that it’s impossible to disentangle them. McKinley chose fiction as a means to talk to non-specialists about radioactive waste. He sets out to debunks the myths around the topic which stem from films, novels and, increasingly, comics, manga and anime, to get readers to ask themselves key questions about the topic.
The world of science now lags behind the gold standard of open debate, otherwise present in politics, for instance. Particularly, when it comes to openly discussing the social issues plaguing the scientific community, such as gender inequality. Ros Herman shares her views about accountability, communication and engagement with the public.
Funding research effectively is a demanding exercise. Young scientists gathered in Bratislava in July 2016 published a wish list for a definite overhaul of the funding system. The key to the change is to empower researchers. The proposals will be annexed to the conclusions of the EU Competitiveness Council of research and innovation ministers and tabled for adoption at the Competitiveness Council on 29 November 2016 in Brussels.
Scientists engaging with members of the public and other stakeholders have yet to gain recognition for doing so, as part of the career promotion criteria by which they will be evaluated. Yet, until such activity is better defined and further adopted by academic institutions, it is unlikely that further efforts would be devoted to raising the quality of these activities. In this opinion piece, based on the findings from research, Richard Holliman explains why.
This issue will dive into the darkest corner of what scientific minds are capable of contriving to get to the goal of being funded and progressing in their career. By reading this special issue, you will find out the damage inflicted on science by scientists neglecting to follow the very essence of scientific endeavour, based on integrity. One lesson is clear. Regardless of personal responsibility, it is essential to examine the failings of the scientific process in the context of the values and the culture influencing scientists.
Welcome to this special edition of the EuroScientist looking into how sharing practices are affecting research and innovation. And why sharing matters! You will find, in our lead article, a wealth of information concerning the impact that the technology has had on sharing practices. We also look into the limitations of current sharing practices, despite the unprecedented availability of technologies to make collaborations happen.
With the development of web-based technologies, the new generation of scientists, often referred to as digital natives, will not be evaluated in the same way as previous generation scientists, the digital migrants. This creates a generational divide. It also could create some potential tensions between them.
The tiny nation of Kosovo has a new science law, which mandates the government to invest 0.7% of its budget in research. This is great news for the nation of less than two million which has been through a bloody break-up with its bigger neighbour Serbia. A Read more […]