En dan wat ik zie als "De mythe van de makkelijk vast te stellen top". Het idee dat wetenschappers gemakkelijk de allerbeste voorstellen of onderzoekers kunnen identificeren is net zo goed een fictie. In mijn ervaring is dit een vorm van post hoc rationaliseren.
(Geheel) objectieve beoordeling van onderzoekskwaliteit is inderdaad een mythe. Er is nooit één juiste selectie. Het is echter wel degelijk mogelijk om tot navolgbare, goed onderbouwde en valide rangordes te komen.
Korte draad over een interessant initiatief van het UMCU, waar Starters & Stimuleringsbeurzen worden verdeeld via loting. Helder en overtuigend toegelicht door (Blueskyloze?) Rinze Benedictus. Twee nuanceringen van mij op basis van 8 jaar ervaring bij NWO: www.umcutrecht.nl/nieuws/onder...
well, I guess you get the point
"Fast Science is bad for scientists and bad for science. Slow Science may actually help us to make faster progress, but how can we slow down? Here, I offer preliminary suggestions for how we can transition to a healthier and more sustainable research culture." www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Fast Science is bad for scientists and bad for science. Slow Science may actually help us to make faster progress, but how can we slow down? Here, I o…
"We found a significant nonlinear association between scientific productivity & final application score that differed by applicant gender & scientific domain with higher scores associated with past funding success & h-index and lower scores associated with female applicants & applied sciences"
BACKGROUND: Peer review is used to determine what research is funded and published, yet little is known about its effectiveness, and it is suspected that there may be biases. We investigated the varia...
"indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science" Aubert Bonn & Pinxten (2021). Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators.
The way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures ...
"“excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship." Moore, Neylon, Paul Eve et al. “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence.
Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D. G., van der Weijden, I., & Wilsdon, J. (2020). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: Progress, obstacles and the way ahead. RoRI Working Paper, 3. eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/171602/
Ruth Müller, Sarah de Rijcke, Thinking with indicators. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences, Research Evaluation, Volume 26, Issue 3, July 2017, Pages 157–168, doi.org/10.1093/rese...