BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Research on Research - ECPv6.15.9//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Research on Research
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://researchonresearch.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Research on Research
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20210101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250630T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250707T170000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250117T105614Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250905T143701Z
UID:2135-1751270400-1751907600@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Metascience 2025 Conference
DESCRIPTION:Save the Date: \n\n\n\nJune 30 – July 2\, 2025University College London\n\n\n\nFrom 30 June to 2 July 2025\, the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) and the Center for Open Science (COS) welcomed over 800 researchers\, funders\, policymakers\, and innovators from 65 countries to explore the future of science and research systems. \n\n\n\n\nMetascience 2025 marked one of RoRI’s biggest milestones to date and the largest gathering of the global metascience community. Attendees came from across research\, funding\, publishing\, policy\, technology\, and related sectors to share evidence\, exchange ideas\, and reflect on how research systems can be improved. \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nMetascience 2025 showcased the power of collaboration across the metascience community\, leaving a lasting legacy of knowledge\, connections\, and inspiration for the future of research. \n\n\n\n \n\nConference sessions\n\n\n\n\nWatch the main sessions from Metascience 2025\, covering policymaking\, funding\, the science of science\, AI\, new institutions\, and open knowledge infrastructures \n\n\n\n\nSee the full story of Metascience 2025 on our Wakelet\, featuring photos\, media coverage\, and highlights from the conference.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/metascience-2025-conference/
CATEGORIES:2025
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/metascience.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250620T120000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250620T130000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250730T114941Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T132942Z
UID:2543-1750420800-1750424400@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Launching Funding by Algorithm: A Handbook for research funders on using AI
DESCRIPTION:Join us for the launch of Funding by Algorithm: A handbook for responsible uses of AI and machine learning by research funders – a major new publication from the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAI is already transforming research systems around the world. But how can funders make informed\, ethical\, and effective choices about using AI in their work? \n\n\n\nFor the last two years\, RoRI’s GRAIL project has worked closely with research funders from around the world to understand how funders can responsibly and effectively make use of AI and machine learning technologies in the vital work of research funding and assessment.  \n\n\n\nOur new handbook Funding by Algorithm distils insights\, strategies\, and case studies from this global collaboration into a practical\, easy-to-use handbook for funders and organisations navigating the fast-changing world of AI in research systems. \n\n\n\nAt this online launch event\, we’ll introduce the handbook\, share key lessons from the GRAIL project\, and hear reflections from leading research funders already engaging with these technologies. Whether you’re cautious\, curious\, or already experimenting with AI\, this event will offer valuable guidance on how to move forward responsibly. \n\n\n\nYou will hear from speakers including: \n\n\n\n\nJames Wilsdon\, Executive Director of the Research on Research Institute\n\n\n\nDenis Newman-Griffis\, University of Sheffield and GRAIL Project Lead\n\n\n\nKatrin Milzow\, Swiss National Science Foundation\n\n\n\nJon Holm\, Research Council of Norway\n\n\n\nInés Bouzón\, “la Caixa” Foundation\n\n\n\nAlexandra Apavaloae\, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada\n\n\n\nJennifer Gold\, ESRC and UK Metascience Unit\n\n\n\nLidia Borrell-Damian\, Science Europe
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/launching-funding-by-algorithm-a-handbook-for-research-funders-on-using-ai/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/GRAIL-cover-image.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250527T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250527T180000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250806T120611Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T120629Z
UID:2555-1748361600-1748368800@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:More and More and More: why energy transitions are an unhelpful myth
DESCRIPTION:Think we’re transitioning to green energy? Think again. Join us for a talk on the history\, mythology and politics of energy transitions.\n\n\n\nJoin us for a compelling discussion with Jean-Baptiste Fressoz\, historian and researcher at CNRS & the Alexandre Koyré Center of EHESS in Paris\, as he forensically dissects the past and future potential for energy transitions. \n\n\n\nFressoz’s new book More and More and More; an all-consuming history of energy – described by The Economist as ‘necessary\, eye-opening and frequently gobsmacking’ – challenges the widely held assumption that our energy history is a linear progression from wood to coal\, oil\, nuclear\, and ultimately to green energy. Instead\, he argues that each new phase of energy use remains inextricably linked to its predecessors\, creating a complex web of interdependencies. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis seminar\, the second in our new series on ‘Flashpoints & faultlines’ will be chaired by Neil Morisetti (Professor of Climate and Resource Security\, and Head of the Department for Science\, Technology\, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP) at UCL\, and former UK Government Special Representative for Climate Change). \n\n\n\nWe will also have contributions from discussants: Dr Bipashyee Ghosh\, Lecturer in Engineering\, Innovation and Public Policy at STEaPP-UCL\, and Oliver Morton (Senior and Briefings Editor\, The Economist). \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nFlashpoints & faultlines in science\, technology\, engineering & public policy: a STEaPP seminar series\n\n\n\nScience\, technology and engineering policy has never been more important\, nor more contested. Over the next year\, UCL’s Department of Science\, Technology\, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP) will be holding a series of seminars under the umbrella theme of ‘Flashpoints & faultlines in science\, technology\, engineering and public policy’. These are designed to provoke and stimulate fresh lines of thought\, debate and research within the department\, across UCL and beyond. \n\n\n\nAll staff and students in STEaPP are warmly invited to participate\, as are colleagues from across UCL with an interest in these topics. The series is being convened by Geoff Mulgan and James Wilsdon\, and is being organised with the support of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI)\, based within STEaPP. \n\n\n\nSeminars will take place from 4pm to 5:30pm\, on the last Tuesday or Wednesday of the month\, and will be followed by an informal drinks and nibbles reception to 6pm. The seminars are held in person as an opportunity to strengthen collaborative links across STEaPP and wider UCL.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/more-and-more-and-more-why-energy-transitions-are-an-unhelpful-myth/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/RoRI-STEaPP-seminar-series-banner.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250521T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250521T170000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250730T114823Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T104842Z
UID:2542-1747843200-1747846800@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Two-stage versus continuous application processing
DESCRIPTION:Curious about how different grant processes shape outcomes for both applicants and funders? In this talk\, we share our experiences with continuous and two-stage processes – from shrinking average waiting times by more than 60 % through continuous handling\, to reducing overall writing effort by nearly half using a two-stage model.  \n\n\n\nOur analyses reveal how each approach influences submission patterns\, applicant satisfaction\, and administrative load. We will present key insights from our evaluations (including comparisons with other funders)\, highlighting when and why a particular process may be most effective. 
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/two-stage-versus-continuous-application-processing/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/pexels-pixabay-87611-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250430T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250430T180000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250806T120046Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T120333Z
UID:2552-1746028800-1746036000@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Do we need a new generation of public institutions for ST&I?
DESCRIPTION:Do we need a new generation of public institutions for ST&I? \n\n\n\nPublic institutions for science and technology have hardly changed over half a century; even the UK’s most recent creation\, ARIA\, is consciously modelled on a US institution founded in the 1960s. But there is much to learn from other sectors that have innovated far more\, including business. The deep institutional conservatism of public science may be one factor behind the continuous decline of R&D productivity. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis talk from Sir Geoff Mulgan\, Professor of Collective Intelligence\, Public Policy and Social Innovation\, UCL STEaPP & Co-founder\, The Institutional Architecture Lab (TIAL)\, will provide a diagnosis\, share alternative ways of thinking being used by some governments around the world\, and point to a potentially very different institutional landscape for science and technology in the 2030s. \n\n\n\nThis event will be chaired by James Wilsdon\, Professor of Research Policy\, UCL & Executive Director\, Research on Research Institute. \n\n\n\nAnjana Ahuja\, Science Commentator at the Financial Times\, William Cullerne Bown\, Journalist at The Independent and New Scientist\, and Ine Steenmans\, Associate Professor in Futures\, Analysis and Policy at UCL\, will join as discussants. \n\n\n\nArticle in ResearchProfessional covering the seminar\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nFlashpoints & faultlines in science\, technology\, engineering & public policy: a STEaPP seminar series \n\n\n\nScience\, technology and engineering policy has never been more important\, nor more contested. Over the next year\, UCL’s Department of Science\, Technology\, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP) will be holding a series of seminars under the umbrella theme of ‘Flashpoints & faultlines in science\, technology\, engineering and public policy’. These are designed to provoke and stimulate fresh lines of thought\, debate and research within the department\, across UCL and beyond. \n\n\n\nAll staff and students in STEaPP are warmly invited to participate\, as are colleagues from across UCL with an interest in these topics. The series is being convened by Geoff Mulgan and James Wilsdon\, and is being organised with the support of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI)\, based within STEaPP.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/do-we-need-a-new-generation-of-public-institutions-for-sti/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/RoRI-STEaPP-seminar-series-banner.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250423T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250423T090000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250730T114546Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250730T114629Z
UID:2540-1745395200-1745398800@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:An experiment with Distributed Peer Review
DESCRIPTION:As it becomes increasingly difficult to find experts to carry out peer reviews\, the Volkswagen Foundation in Hanover\, Germany’s largest research funding organisation\, is testing an alternative method: distributed peer review (DPR). In this approach\, grant applicants review each other’s proposals. The process could make it easier to find suitable reviewers\, especially as there is an incentive for reviewers to participate in order to have their own work considered. Applicants gain insights that could improve their own proposals by receiving more diverse feedback. DPR may also help to bring out more creative and daring research ideas. \n\n\n\nWhile it’s not without challenges\, including concerns about workload and potential competition\, the early feedback from researchers is promising. Roughly 74% said they trusted the process to be fair in giving funding to the best research\, and 70% of respondents said they thought it would help to identify more adventurous grant proposals than those selected by the existing peer review process\, which is conducted by panelists appointed by the foundation. \n\n\n\nCould this be a model for future grant processes in research funding? Further analysis seeks to answer this question. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHanna Denecke is a passionate advocate for curiosity-driven research and the transformative power of bold\, out-of-the-box ideas. As head of the Exploration team at the Volkswagen Foundation\, she is committed to supporting groundbreaking research that has the potential to reshape the future of science and society. With a background in economics and extensive experience in research management\, Hanna is keen to identify and promote experimental approaches to research funding and to further the Foundation’s mission of empowering researchers to explore bold\, experimental paths that can ultimately transform both science and society.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/an-experiment-with-distributed-peer-review/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/pexels-pixabay-87611-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20250319T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20250319T160000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250217T152217Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250217T152451Z
UID:2209-1742396400-1742400000@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Do Grant Proposal Texts Matter for Funding Decisions? A Field Experiment
DESCRIPTION:19 March 2025 08:00 PDT  / 15:00 GMT / 16:00 CET \n\n\n\nScientists and funding agencies invest considerable resources in writing and evaluating grant proposals. But do grant proposal texts noticeably change panel decisions in single blind review? \n\n\n\nWe report on a field experiment conducted by The Dutch Research Council (NWO) in collaboration with the authors in an early-career competition for awards of 800\,000 euros of research funding. A random half of panelists were shown a CV and only a one-paragraph summary of the proposed research\, while the other half were shown a CV and a full proposal. We find that withholding proposal texts from panelists did not detectibly impact their proposal rankings. This result suggests that the resources devoted to writing and evaluating grant proposals may not have their intended effect of facilitating the selection of the most promising science. \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nAbout the Speaker\n\n\n\n\nMüge Simsek is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the programme group Institutions\, Inequalities and Life Courses at the University of Amsterdam. She earned her PhD from Utrecht University in 2019 and completed postdoctoral research at both Utrecht University and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute. Prior to her current role\, she worked as a lecturer at University College Groningen. Her research centers on the integration processes of immigrants and their offspring\, with a particular emphasis on the role of religion. In parallel\, she maintains a secondary research agenda focused on the organization of science and inequality within academia.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/do-grant-proposal-texts-matter-for-funding-decisions-a-field-experiment/
CATEGORIES:Experiments
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/pexels-pixabay-87611-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241203T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241203T143000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250806T110856Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T111052Z
UID:2549-1733230800-1733236200@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Utility of LLMs in identifying and assessing academic genres
DESCRIPTION:The European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) in partnership with the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) is proud to present the next webinar in its series on research evaluation as it is practiced across disciplines and countries. \n\n\n\nThis is the second event in a thematic line on AI in research assessment. This time we ask how large language models (LLMs) can support assessment of various academic genres. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTIONResearch assessment as intertextual reading: Opportunities and challenges in the use of Artificial intelligence in evaluation of SSHSpecial advisor Dr Jon Holm\, Research Council of Norway \n\n\n\nSPEAKERSEvaluating social science\, arts and humanities journal article quality with ChatGPTProfessor Mike Thelwall\, University of Sheffield \n\n\n\nResearch quality evaluation of journal articles is time-consuming\, even for post-publication expert review tasks like national research evaluation exercises. It is also necessary to assess the strength of candidates’ works for recruitment and promotion. This talk assesses ChatGPT’s ability to score social science\, arts and humanities journal articles using papers and criteria from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2021. The systemic implications of using artificial intelligence to fully or partially replace human judgement for this core task will also be discussed. \n\n\n\nAdaptation of neural language models to different textual domains and the use of language models for comparative analysis of textDr Denis Newman-Griffis\, Senior Lecturer\, University of Sheffield\, and a Research Fellow of the Research on Research Institute \n\n\n\nSpeakers\n\n\n\nMike Thelwall (he) is a Professor of Data Science in the Information School at the University of Sheffield in the UK. He primarily investigates quantitative methods to support research evaluation\, including artificial intelligence\, citation analysis and altmetrics. He has recently shown that ChatGPT can provide useful research quality assessments for published journal articles. His books include: Quantitative Methods in Research Evaluation Citation Indicators\, Altmetrics\, and Artificial Intelligence (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.00135). He is an associate editor of the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and sits on five other editorial boards. \n\n\n\nDenis Newman-Griffis (they/them) is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield Centre for Machine Intelligence and a British Academy Innovation Fellow. They lead the Research on Research Institute’s GRAIL project on Responsible AI and Machine Learning for research funding and evaluation\, and they are an active participant in Responsible AI policy discussions in research\, education\, and government. \n\n\n\nJon Holm (he) is a special advisor at the Research council of Norway where he works with the development of national research assessment in Norway and the use of AI in research evaluation and analysis. Jon and Denis have recently published on the potential and pitfalls of the use of AI in research financing: Holm et al. (2025). “Big Data for Big Investments: Making Responsible and Effective Use of Data Science and AI in Research Councils” in Nielsen et al (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Evaluation\, Routledge 2025 (ch. 7)
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/utility-of-llms-in-identifying-and-assessing-academic-genres/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Chat-GPT.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241126T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241126T163000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250806T105653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T105822Z
UID:2547-1732633200-1732638600@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Introducing MetaROR: A new peer review platform for metaresearch
DESCRIPTION:The Research on Research Institute (RoRI) and the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS) are launching the MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) platform. \n\n\n\nMetaROR will facilitate open peer review of articles in the field of metaresearch\, and will operate according to a publish-review-curate model. This model will accelerate the communication of scholarly work since peer review will take place quickly\, openly\, and after publication rather than before. \n\n\n\nIn this online seminar\, Kathy Zeiler and Ludo Waltman\, the Editors-in-Chief of MetaROR\, will introduce the platform and discuss the benefits of MetaROR’s innovative publish-review-curate model. \n\n\n\nIn addition\, authors of articles reviewed by MetaROR will share their experiences\, and journal editors will reflect on how they expect to collaborate with MetaROR to streamline publication processes. \n\n\n\nWe invite anyone interested in metaresearch or innovation in scientific publishing to join this seminar. We look forward to an engaging event! \n\n\n\nAGENDA \n\n\n\nI. What is MetaROR?Kathy Zeiler and Ludo Waltman\, the Editors-in-Chief of MetaROR \n\n\n\nII. Why do authors submit to MetaROR?Short perspectives from authors of two articles submitted to MetaROR and Q&ASimon Porter and Natalia Gonzalez Bohorquez \n\n\n\nIII. How does MetaROR enrich the landscape of scientific publishing?Short perspectives from the editors of two metaresearch journals and an editor of eLife \, with Q&ALin Zhang\, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner\, and Peter Rodgers \n\n\n\nSPEAKERS \n\n\n\nLudo WaltmanLudo Waltman is professor of Quantitative Science Studies at Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and co-chair of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). He serves as Editor-in-Chief of MetaROR. \n\n\n\nKathy ZeilerKathy Zeiler is Nancy Barton Scholar and Professor of Law at Boston University’s School of Law. She serves as a board member of the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS) and as Editor-in-Chief of MetaROR. \n\n\n\nNatalia Gonzalez BohorquezNatalia Gonzalez Bohorquez (MPH\, BS Soc) is an early career researcher in health economics and health services research. She recently finished her doctoral research (PhD) focused on exploring liveable communities for people with disabilities living in rural areas of Australia. \n\n\n\nLin ZhangLin Zhang is professor at the School of Information Management at Wuhan University. She serves as Editor-in-Chief of Scientometrics. \n\n\n\nWolfgang KaltenbrunnerWolfgang Kaltenbrunner is senior researcher at Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies and senior research fellow at the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). He serves as associate editor of Science as Culture. \n\n\n\nPeter RodgersPeter Rodgers was part of the team that launched eLife in 2012\, and is currently Chief Magazine Editor of the journal. Previously he was Chief Editor of Nature Nanotechnology and Editor of Physics World magazine. \n\n\n\nSimon PorterSimon Porter\, VP of Research Futures at Digital Science\, has spent a career exploring research metadata with particular focus on the ways metadata moves through systems\, as well as its use in creating digital research identity.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/introducing-metaror-a-new-peer-review-platform-for-metaresearch/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/first-success-in-gaining-access-multi-step-authen-2023-01-25-12-16-03-utc-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241111T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241111T143000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250117T110100Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250806T111133Z
UID:2136-1731330000-1731335400@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) in classification of Social Sciences and Humanities research and societal impact
DESCRIPTION:The European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) in partnership with the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) is proud to present the next webinar in its series on research evaluation as it is practiced across disciplines and countries. \n\n\n\nWe are opening a new thematic line on AI in research assessment with the presentation of two classification exercises using Natural Language Processing (NLP). \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMODERATORSpecial advisor Dr Jon Holm\, Research Council of Norway \n\n\n\nSPEAKERSTopic modeling of SSH publications from the VABB publication databaseSenior researcher Dr Raf Guns\, Flemish Centre for Research & Development Monitoring (ECOOM)\, Antwerp University \n\n\n\nClassifying REF impact cases by user groups – a lexical approachProfessor Andrea Bonaccorsi\, Economics and Management at the School of Engineering of the University of Pisa \n\n\n\nRESPONDENTDr Denis Newman-Griffis Lecturer in Data Science\, University of Sheffield\, and a Research Fellow of the Research on Research Institute \n\n\n\nSPEAKERS\n\n\n\nRaf Guns (he) is a senior researcher at the University of Antwerp\, where he coordinates the Antwerp branch of the Flemish Centre for Research & Development Monitoring (ECOOM). His research focuses on quantitative science studies\, addressing topics like interdisciplinarity\, open science\, and the characteristics of the social sciences and humanities. \n\n\n\nAndrea Bonaccorsi (he) is a Professor of Economics and Management at the School of Engineering of the University of Pisa. His main areas of research are economics of science and innovation. With more than 200 works\, he is listed in the top 2% of world scientists. \n\n\n\nDenis Newman-Griffis(they/them) is a Lecturer in Data Science at the University of Sheffield\, a Research Fellow of the Research on Research Institute\, and a British Academy Innovation Fellow. Their research investigates the principles and practices of Responsible AI\, focusing on health and disability as well as public sector governance. They lead the Research on Research Institute’s GRAIL project on Responsible AI and Machine Learning for research funding and evaluation\, and they are an active participant in Responsible AI policy discussions in research\, education\, and government. \n\n\n\nRegister on Eventbrite.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/using-natural-language-processing-nlp-in-classification-of-social-sciences-and-humanities-research-and-societal-impact/
CATEGORIES:Online,Research Evaluation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/natural-language-processing-spiral-of-letters-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241002T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241002T173000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250117T110206Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110759Z
UID:2137-1727884800-1727890200@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Advancing Open Research through Metascience
DESCRIPTION:This ICOR meeting focused on the growing significance of metascience for improving scientific research. As metascience becomes a recognised practice for evaluating scientific evidence and identifying potential biases\, it’s important for stakeholders from different regions to collaborate on metascience projects and share expertise and resources that address common challenges. A unified approach to metascience can provide the mechanisms to help us learn from what we are doing and establish a continuous improvement cycle for implementing innovations in how science is performed. It will also provide trusted information to governments and policy makers to make more informed and evidence-based choices. \n\n\n\nThis meeting hosted four talks that provided real-life examples of the increasing influence of metascience as a systematic approach to understanding the practices\, processes\, and challenges across the academic research ecosystem. \n\n\n\nThe meeting sparked much conversation and what came across clearly is that metascience as a field is becoming a mainstay in understanding how to perform and evaluate research. We are now at an inflection point where metascience actors and enthusiasts are actively coalescing to ensure global participation and creating open spaces to collaborate and learn from each other. \n\n\n\nMetascience for Reforming Research Assessment: an Indian Perspective\n\n\n\nMoumita Koley\, DST- Centre for Policy Research\, Indian Institute of Science [slides; streaming video 3-21 min] \n\n\n\nMoumita described her work that focuses on generating evidence and advocating for change to research assessment in India. Her work is a part of project AGORRA\, a global observatory of responsible research assessment that generates comparative data\, evidence and analysis to support and accelerate change across national assessment systems. Moumita provided a detailed overview of the Indian context where quantitative metrics play the dominant role in research assessment. She then shared two case studies\, the first on the misalignment between research outputs and disease burden in health research\, and the second on evaluating the parameters used by the Indian National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) to understand if they promoted a publish or perish culture and the consequences that has had on Indian research practices. \n\n\n\nAdvancing open science through metascience\n\n\n\nJames Wilsdon\, Research on Research Institute (RORI) [slides; streaming video 21-44 mins] \n\n\n\nJames started off by letting us know RORI had recently celebrated its 5th birthday and described how RORI’s mission to accelerate transformative research on research systems\, cultures\, and decision-making has evolved over time. James explained how the current set-up of the RORI team enables them to co-design and deliver projects that can respond quickly to strategic dilemmas and opportunities that partners identify\, or are rising up in wider policy and scientific agendas. James then went on to highlight the newly formed UK metascience unit that aims to formalise the practice of using scientific methodology to study how research is done at the national level. James finished by showing how the global metascience community has grown and matured over time and that the next major gathering for the field will be in London at the Metascience 2025 conference (and welcomed the community’s participation). \n\n\n\nThe Metascience Alliance\n\n\n\nBrian Nosek\, Center for Open Science (COS) [slides; streaming video 44-65 mins] \n\n\n\nBrian’s presentation built upon the gaining popularity of metascience and explained that metascience-engaged groups have distinct and complementary interests\, which spurred on the idea to create the Metascience Alliance. The Metascience Alliance aims to be a trusted third party for metascience aligned and interested organizations and individuals with three primary objectives; community building\, workforce development and matchmaking. Brian explained the initial vision is to create a light coordination to better foster collaboration\, however the overall make-up and direction of the Metascience Alliance is still under scope. There is currently a process underway to assign a contractor as a Founding Program Manager for a 2 year pilot to get the ball rolling and start broader outreach and engagement with metascience stakeholders. More public information will be available soon\, but if you are interested in finding out more now then feel free to reach out to Brian. \n\n\n\nStudying Aligning Sciences Across Parkinson’s (ASAP)\n\n\n\nKristen Ratan\, Incentivising Collaborative and Open Research (ICOR) [slides; streaming video 65-82 mins] \n\n\n\nKristen’s presentation focus on ICOR’s work with Aligning Sciences Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) and how ICOR is now in a position to study the impact of ASAP’s Collaborative Research Network (CRN) and open science principles that were implemented in 2021. To do this ICOR have enlisted the University of Virginia’s metascience team\, led by Alex Gates\, to study data and ask questions that will help ASAP make decisions on their own policies but also provide real-world evidence for other funders and institutions looking to implement similar policies and practices. The study intends to answer important questions around the process and impact of implementing open science policies\, the engagement of the CRN with open and collaborative research\, and changes in researcher behaviour over time. ICOR will endeavour to share the results of this project as the work progresses.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/advancing-open-research-through-metascience/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/matrix-abstract-electronic-brain-open-science-scaled-e1737734852313.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240513T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240513T170000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250117T110310Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110759Z
UID:2138-1715587200-1715619600@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Launching AFIRE: An accelerator to boost institutional capacity for experiments with research and innovation funding
DESCRIPTION:On 13 May\, 31 research funders from 17 countries participated in the launch of RoRI’s newest project AFIRE (Accelerator For Innovation & Research Funding Experimentation). \n\n\n\nAcross research systems worldwide\, interest in trialing novel methods of research funding and evaluation is growing fast\, but funders are at different points in their engagement and readiness. AFIRE is a collaboration between RoRI\, the Innovation Growth Lab (IGL) and a consortium of our funder partners which aims to boost institutional capacity for the design\, implementation and synthesis of experiments with research and innovation funding. \n\n\n\nAt the launch\, we showcased several new or planned experiments\, and heard from funders working at the vanguard of evidence-informed approaches to peer review\, grant-giving and impact assessment. \n\n\n\nThree opening talks set the scene: \n\n\n\n\nStian Westlake\, Executive Chair\, ESRC (part of UK Research and Innovation) outlined ambitions for the UK government’s Metascience Unit and linked £5 million UKRI and Open Philanthropy funding call;\n\n\n\nHanna Denecke\, Head of Funding Team “Exploration” at the Volkswagen Foundation\, described their latest experiment with distributed peer review;\n\n\n\nCaleb Watney\, Co-founder and Co-CEO of the Institute for Progress in Washington DC\, previewed a new wave of metascience experiments at the US National Science Foundation.\n\n\n\n\n \n  \nDuring the meeting\, we also announced the appointment of Theodore Hodapp (Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation) and Stian Westlake (ESRC & UKRI) as the two Co-Chairs of the AFIRE steering group.  \n\n\n\nStian Westlake praised the AFIRE project for building valuable capacity to support what is becoming a ‘metascientific moment’ for the international research funding community\, characterised by growing enthusiasm and practical support for a culture of experimentation with research funding\, evaluation and decision-making – from the newly launched UKRI grant call to a Metascience Working Group set up by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). \n\n\n\nTom Stafford (RoRI) and Albert Bravo-Biosca (Innovation Growth Lab) then described in more detail how the AFIRE programme will work. Next steps will include running a forum for peer exchange on novel experimental approaches; sprints tackling a particular issue which aim to achieve substantive progress over a short period of time; and providing ongoing assistance for partners who are in the earlier stages of developing experiments. \n 
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/launching-afire-an-accelerator-to-boost-institutional-capacity-for-experiments-with-research-and-innovation-funding/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/pexels-pixabay-87611-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231117T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231117T173000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110759Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T112456Z
UID:2139-1700236800-1700242200@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Cite Black Women: A Critical Praxis
DESCRIPTION:Christen A. Smith (The Cite Black Women Collective) \n\n\n\nThe politics of citation are often considered a purely academic\, bibliographic exercise. However\, the practice of citation is a keenly political one that is imbricated with race and gender politics. \n\n\n\nIn this talk\, we explore the politics of inequality hidden within the practice of citation by considering the experiences of Black women. What does it look like to dismantle the patriarchal\, white supremacist\, heterosexist\, imperialist impetus of the neoliberal university (and its accomplices) by centering Black women’s ideas and intellectual contributions? \n\n\n\nHistorically\, the university has exploited Black women’s labor\, appropriated our ideas and refused to give us the appropriate credit for our work. Citing Black women is\, therefore\, a project of radical refusal with revolutionary possibilities. \n\n\n\nIf universities and oppressive spaces of knowledge production seek to silence and erase Black women\, then acknowledging and centering us holds revolutionary possibilities. \n\n\n\nThis talk explores the revolutionary possibilities and the political stakes of citation as a radical Black feminist praxis. \n\n\n\nFollowing the experience of the Cite Black Women movement\, it considers how we can redress inequality through a radical engagement with citation as not only intellectual practice but also as political intervention. \n\n\n\nThe Speakers\n\n\n\nChristen A. Smith is a Black feminist anthropologist and the creator of Cite Black Women – a campaign that brings awareness to the race and gender politics of citation\, and the erasure of Black women’s intellectual contributions in global society. In 2018 Cite Black Women was listed as one of the Top 10 Issues by Essence Magazine; featured by The Times Higher Education of London. \n\n\n\nChristen is an associate professor of anthropology and African and African diaspora studies\, and director of the Center for Women and Gender Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. \n\n\n\nJoy Owango from the Training Centre in Communication offers responses to the seminar. The seminar is chaired by Ludo Waltman\, deputy director at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/cite-black-women-a-critical-praxis/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/street-art-south-africa--e1737735831967.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230705T113000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230705T123000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110759Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110759Z
UID:2140-1688556600-1688560200@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:The emerging shape of REF 2028
DESCRIPTION:Digesting\, debating and delivering the outcomes of the UK’s Future of Research Assessment Programme \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSince 1986\, UK universities have lived through eight cycles of national research assessment. Over that time\, the purposes and methods of assessment have evolved and become more complex. The last Research Excellence Framework—REF 2021—involved 157 institutions submitting over 185\,000 research outputs and 6\,700 impact case studies from 76\,000 staff. \n\n\n\nNow the initial rules have been published for the 2028 REF\, with some significant changes in the design of the exercise\, and a sharper focus on the people\, cultures and environments that underpin a vibrant and sustainable research system. \n\n\n\nWith moves towards responsible research assessment gaining momentum across the global research community\, the next REF is an important opportunity to reshape incentives within the UK research system and look afresh at what should be recognised and rewarded. \n\n\n\nThe Speakers\n\n\n\nWelcome and introductory remarks\n\n\n\n\nProf. Geraint Rees\, Vice-Provost for Research\, Innovation & Global Engagement\, UCL\n\n\n\n\nPart 1: Where next for the REF?\n\n\n\n\nChair: Lord Willetts\, Chair\, Foundation for Science and Technology and former Minister for Universities and Science\n\n\n\nRedesigning assessment: outcomes of the FRAP and next steps — Prof. Dame Jessica Corner\, Executive Chair\, Research England\n\n\n\nPurposes\, priorities and pillars of REF 2028 — Dr Steven Hill\, Director of Research\, and Dr Catriona Firth (Associate Director for Research Environment)\, Research England\n\n\n\nPerspective from the International Advisory Group — Sir Peter Gluckman\, Chair FRAP IAG and President\, International Science Council\n\n\n\nA view from CoARA — Dr Elizabeth Gadd\, Vice-Chair\, CoARA and Loughborough University\n\n\n\nQ&A and discussion\n\n\n\n\nPart 2: The formative role of REF in UK research culture\n\n\n\n\nChair: James Wilsdon\, Director\, RoRI & Professor of Research Policy\, UCL\n\n\n\nPanel (opening statements\, followed by questions from participants)\n\n\n\nProf. Louise Bracken\, PVC for Research & Knowledge Exchange\, Northumbria University (TBC)\n\n\n\nDiego Baptista\, Head of Research Funding & Equity\, Wellcome\n\n\n\nProf. Simon Hettrick\, University of Southampton and Chair\, The Hidden REF\n\n\n\nEmma Todd\, Director of Research Culture\, UCL
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/the-emerging-shape-of-ref-2028/
CATEGORIES:Research Evaluation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/technology-face-detection-concept-artificial-inte-2022-12-16-03-28-07-utc-scaled-e1737735302154.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230615T180000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230615T193000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110759Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110759Z
UID:2141-1686852000-1686857400@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Can AI predict research impacts?
DESCRIPTION:The success or failure of medical research is judged by patient outcomes far downstream of the strategic decisions that initiate it. Optimising translational impact therefore relies on long range forecasting\, for which no established framework exists. The evaluation of research proposals by expert appraisal of their content is undermined by difficulties with scaling\, reproducibility\, generalisability\, and bias. Evaluation by summary bibliometrics of public reception offers greater objectivity but doubtful fidelity. Both approaches favour the familiar\, the conventional\, the plausible\, and the incremental; and oppose the unusual\, the unorthodox\, the counter-intuitive\, and the disruptive: rare characteristics on which translational success increasingly depends.  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn this talk\, Amy Nelson and Parashkev Nachev (UCL) advocate for a third way\, founded on richly expressive models of research content\, that seeks to combine the finesse of a human expert with the rigour of a machine. They argue such models can successfully capture regularities too intricate to be either intuitively apprehensible or reducible to summary metrics\, thereby illuminating complex characteristics of translational success in which testable hypotheses about optimal research strategy may be grounded.  \n\n\n\nThey describe a proof-of-concept analysis of the comparative predictability of future real-world translation—as indexed by inclusion in patents\, guidelines\, or policy documents—from complex models of title/abstract-level published research content versus citations and metadata alone. Quantifying predictive performance out-of-sample\, ahead of time\, across major domains\, using the entire corpus of biomedical research captured by Microsoft Academic Graph from 1990–2019\, encompassing 43.3 million papers\, they show that high-dimensional models of titles\, abstracts\, and metadata exhibit substantially higher fidelity (AUC > 0.9) than simple models\, generalise across time and domain\, and transfer to recognising the papers of Nobel laureates. Their talk will build on this recent paper in Patterns. \n\n\n\nThe Speakers\n\n\n\nAmy Nelson is a Senior Research Associate in the High Dimensional Neurology Group at UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology\, Research Impact Fellow at the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre\, and a junior doctor. Dr Nelson builds AI models for clinical\, operational and research impact objectives across computer vision\, deep representation learning\, and natural language processing domains. \n\n\n\nParashkev Nachev is a Professor of Neurology at the UCL Institute of Neurology\, and Honorary Consultant Neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery\, Queen Square. His High-Dimensional Neurology Group develops novel computational methods for drawing representational\, predictive\, and prescriptive intelligence from rich data.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/can-ai-predict-research-impacts/
CATEGORIES:Online,Seminar,Ai
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-machine-learning-2023-05-21-04-29-23-utc-scaled-e1737735189337.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230518T180000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230518T190000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110800Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110800Z
UID:2142-1684432800-1684436400@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Invert the order! Government's role in shaping a science superpower
DESCRIPTION:What is required for the UK to stay at the cutting edge of science and technology and make harnessing its benefits our national purpose? And what role does the government have in that? \n\n\n\nFormer special adviser on Science & Technology to the UK Prime Minister\, James Phillips\, reflects on his experiences at the nerve centre of UK research and innovation policy.  \n\n\n\nJames argues that there are opportunities and pitfalls that arise from government bureaucracies taking greater interest in S&T. He outlines priorities for a reform agenda over the next decade\, drawing upon his experiences in Number Ten\, as a research scientist\, and as a co-author of the recent Tony Blair-William Hague report ‘A New National Purpose’.  \n\n\n\nJames also outlines a provocative recent paper he co-authored with Paul Nightingale\, which argues that the UK is falling behind the cutting edge in some crucial areas of science. Finally\, he explores how the metascience community could support and advance a new national purpose in science and technology.  \n\n\n\nRead James Phillips’ article which accompanies this talk on Substack here. \n\n\n\nThe Speaker\n\n\n\nJames Phillips is a former special adviser on science and technology to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson; one of the ‘weirdos and misfits’ hired to work in Number Ten. He worked on setting up ARIA\, which he had called for with others in a 2018 Telegraph op-ed. He also helped to drive rapid lateral flow testing in government\, including being part of the team that published the first modelling of rapid testing in April 2020. Prior to government\, he worked at HHMI’s Janelia Research Campus and did a PhD in Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge\, where he was awarded the British Neuroscience Association’s graduate thesis of the year award. He is currently an honorary senior research fellow at UCL’s Department of Science\, Technology\, Engineering and Public Policy (UCL-STEaPP). He blogs at jameswphillips.substack.com.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/invert-the-order-governments-role-in-shaping-a-science-superpower-2/
CATEGORIES:Online,UCL,Science
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/science-2022-10-31-23-20-34-utc-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20221212T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20221212T170000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110800Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110800Z
UID:2143-1670832000-1670864400@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:Machine learning\, metrics & merit: the future of research assessment
DESCRIPTION:The use of quantitative indicators and metrics in research assessment continues to generate a mix of enthusiasm\, hostility and critique. To these possibilities\, we can add growing interest in uses of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to automate assessment processes\, and reduce the cost and bureaucracy of conventional methods of peer and panel-based review. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNovel methods also bring potential pitfalls\, uncertainties and dilemmas\, and may operate in some tension with moves towards responsible research assessment\, as reflected in the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the new Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). \n\n\n\nAs the UK again reviews its approach to research assessment and the design of the Research Excellence Framework (REF)\, these and other issues are up for discussion through the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP)\, initiated by the four UK higher education funding bodies. \n\n\n\nThis workshop launches two new studies that should make significant contributions to the FRAP process. \n\n\n\nThe first\, led by Professor Mike Thelwall\, is a ground-breaking analysis of whether one could run a REF exercise using AI. The second is an updated review of the role of metrics in the UK research assessment system\, which builds on the 2015 review\,The Metric Tide\, which called for responsible approaches to the use of metrics\, and cautioned against purely metric-based approaches to assessment. For more on these studies\, see recent articles in Nature\, Research Professional and Times Higher Education. \n\n\n\nWe were joined by Professor Dame Jessica Corner\, new Executive Chair of Research England who offered opening keynote remarks\, and by two panels of UK and international experts.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/machine-learning-metrics-merit-the-future-of-research-assessment/
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Research Evaluation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/tide-ocean-waves-beach-scaled-e1737735101368.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20220721T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20220721T170000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110801Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110801Z
UID:2144-1658419200-1658422800@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:When priorities don't align with needs: the case of mental health research
DESCRIPTION:Mental ill-health and well-being are increasingly recognised as being intimately linked to a wide range of environmental and social factors. As such\, the ways in which researchers approach\, understand\, and engage with mental health must be broad\, ranging from the biophysiological mechanisms underpinning brain function\, to the societal determinants which alter it. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe significance of this connection has been illustrated by the effects of COVID lockdowns on mental health in which: fear\, sudden changes in daily habits\, family roles\, domestic violence\, work burnout\, etc. have all palpably impinged on mental well-being. \n\n\n\nIn this seminar\, Ismael Rafols\, senior researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology studies (CWTS\, Leiden University) and associate faculty at SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit) at the University of Sussex\, presents a recent study\, based on a collaboration between Vinnova and CWTS. \n\n\n\nThis contrasts current research priorities with societal demands through the analysis of publication specialisation of countries\, funders and organisations\, shown in open interactive visualisations. The results suggest a need to diversify mental health research towards more socially engaged approaches. \n\n\n\nSara Nässtrom of Vinnova\, the Swedish Innovation Agency\, who represents Vinnova in Sweden’s National Strategy for Mental Health\, offers her response. \n\n\n\nThis event was part of  RoRI ‘s seminar series on the theme of Culture Shift\, where we aim to spotlight some of the most exciting thinkers\, practitioners and research system entrepreneurs who are at the forefront of analysing\, pioneering and propelling culture shifts across science and research.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/when-priorities-dont-align-with-needs-the-case-of-mental-health-research/
CATEGORIES:Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/puzzle-wooden-colourful-shapes-scaled-e1737735055172.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20220616T153000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20220616T163000
DTSTAMP:20251024T032423
CREATED:20250128T110801Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T110801Z
UID:2145-1655393400-1655397000@researchonresearch.org
SUMMARY:The Quantified Scholar
DESCRIPTION:Around the world\, the good\, the bad and the ugly in research cultures are the focus of unprecedented scrutiny and debate. Imperatives of equality\, diversity\, inclusion\, impact\, integrity and sustainability are forcing overdue change to institutions\, policies and practices. But there is still a long way to go. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJuan Pablo Pardo-Guerra\, associate professor of sociology at the University of California\, San Diego and author of the book The Quantified Scholar\, explores how processes of research evaluation themselves shape disciplines\, promote conformity and limit diversity. \n\n\n\nProf. Sarah de Rijcke\, Co-Chair of RoRI and Scientific Director at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)\, Leiden University and Dr Molly Morgan Jones\, Director of Policy at The British Academy\, offer their responses. \n\n\n\nThis seminar was organised by RoRI and Sheffield Metascience Network (MetaNet) at the University of Sheffield.
URL:https://researchonresearch.org/event/the-quantified-scholar/
CATEGORIES:Online,Seminar,Research Evaluation
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://researchonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/stack-of-books-on-a-chair-e1737735006476.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR