1 / 16

Future Measures of Quality in Scientific Publishing

This scientific publication discusses the future measures of quality in scientific publishing, focusing on the "counting" and "ranking" of scientific peer-reviewed publications. It explores the challenges and questions regarding what types of output should be counted, how output should be ranked, and the potential effects on attitude and behavior. The publication also provides information on the Danish model and the example from Norway.

melisaj
Télécharger la présentation

Future Measures of Quality in Scientific Publishing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scientific Publication, 7 May 2008Theme 6: Future measures of ’Quality’ inScientific PublishingMogens Vestergaard, SVE Background: The allocation of annual basic funding to the Universities and other Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are mainly ‘historic’ The ‘key’ used to distribute the money needs to be adjusted? The present government has promised (I Regeringsgrundlaget) to look at this and to improve the clarity of and reasons for a ‘new’ model for distribution of basic funding A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T E T Faculty of Agricultural Sciences

  2. Future measures of scientific publishing • The basic principle of the new model for distribution of money to the HEI is ’counting’ and ’ranking’ of scientific peer-reviewed publications • No measures of other types of publications, patents, awards, dissemination of results in general etc. • Citation-index is not included, journal impact factor partly • So a measure of ’quantity’ and of ’quality’ is used • Types of publications (monographs, articles, dissertations…) • Have to work across disciplines (from Humanity to Chemistry -- A challenge)? • The principle is, ’the more you produce and of a better quality, the more money will the HEI get’…

  3. Future measures of scientific publishing • Questions which come up: • What type of output should be counted? • How should output be ranked? • How much of the annual funding should be regulated by these ’output’ parameters? • Can this benchmarking be used/misused? • University/Faculty level (wish to improve the ’output’) • Research group/Individual level (how do I survive?) • Will the ’measuring’ affect the attitude and behavior? • Institute level (Ranking) • Individual level (CV) • Any other ranking system of universities includes many criteria (in a weighted model) and not only scientific publications

  4. When will it be introduced? • The plan is to introduce this new tool for the FL-2009 (’Finanslov’) • Will likely be used to re-allocate 5-10% of HEI basic funds • Some leaders (rectors, vice chancellors etc.) are against this new ’bibliometric indicator’ model • Technical problems (>20,000 journals, large database, Web-interface …) • Resources at FI to support the process are limited • How to get people work (for free) in the ’Scientific groups’? • So, the time-table has been delayed (several times)

  5. The work so far…. • ’Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen’ (FI, Ministry of research and higher education) leads the practical work • A Technical committee, Scientific committee, and Steering-committee founded. • A Survey was made by an external consultancy company • ’Rektor-kollegiet’ assists in the process, appoints scientists to ’faggrupper’ (Scientific groups) and makes sure the scientists participating in the work and the whole ’free’ resources spent on this process are not exploding • 68 ’faggrupper’ covering the various disciplines are founded. 4-10 members per group. • ’Biology’ is no. 32. MV is chairman + 7 people • More than 1100 journals to be checked! • And later ranked….

  6. The database and model are adapted from Norway…. • Norway introduced a similar system in 2006 • Lists ofjournals and of publishers ’converted’ by FI • Introduction seminar (January 2008) for all chairs • Check the lists: Add, remove etc. (deadline 7 May 2008) • Scientific or not is based on acceptable peer-review procedures • Publishers must on average publish 75% of external papers/articles • Seminar on ’ranking’ and ’weighting’ of various types of publications and on ’fractioning’ (what to do with more authors from different institutions) • On-going…. And so on….. • Autumn 2009: Model in place and work?

  7. The Danish model: ’From the individual publication to the indicator’(by Jørgen Søndergaard, chair of the Scientific committee) Tanken er at tildele en publikation et antal point, der afhænger af • Kvalitetsniveauet for udgiveren af publikationen baseret på en opdeling i kvalitetsniveauer inden for hver publiceringskanal. (niveaudeling). • Publikationsform (monografi, tidsskriftsartikel osv) • 1. + 2. = et samlet sæt af vægte, der fastlægger en given publikations pointtal • Fraktionering: Hvis der er flere forfattere fra forskellige institutioner og/eller en forfatter med flere ”affiliations” skal publikationens pointtal fordeles på de forskellige institutioner).

  8. The example from Norway Niveauinddeling – vægtning - fraktionering Gunnar Sivertsen Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning (NIFU-STEP) A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T E T Faculty of Agricultural Sciences

  9. Den ”norske” model bygger på princippet om fagfællebedømmelse somLudvig Holberg formulerede her i København i 1750 • Forskere skal ”communicere hinanden deres Tanker, saaledes, at enhver lader sine Inventioner og Skrifter see og corrigere af det heele Societet”. • De skal derfor ”lade deres Skrifter examinere” ved publicering, • skriver Ludvig Holberg i Epistel 365 (1750) om ”Aarsagerne til videnskabelige Fremskridt”, • hvor han trækker linien fra Royal Society (1660) til Videnskabernes Selskab i København (1742)

  10. ’Types of scientific publications’ Kan være periodika, serier og hjemmesiderne (ISSN) eller udgivere av ISBN-titler Editorial organization Manu-scripts Publi-cations Authors Peer review Readers

  11. Why use levels for the various types of publications? Model for virkningen af en budgetindikator på det generelle publiceringsmønster

  12. Forskellige publiceringsmønstre giver forskellige minimumskriterier for nominering til niveau 2 – i fire faggrupper (A-D) Kun de mest anerkendte internationale tidsskrifter… Naturvidenskab Og medicin … og serier. Teknik Humaniora og samfundsvidenskab førende tidsskrifter, serier og bogudgivere med international forfatterkreds. Internationalt sprog (betinget af fag) … Historie og jura … plus de vigtigste norske eller nordiske tidsskrifter.

  13. The use of various types of publications depends on the scientific area

  14. Increased number of authors and affiliations per article. There is a need for increased collaboration, specialization and productivity

  15. Weight-factors used at 2 levels for various types of publications in NORWAY(Introduced and used since 2006)

  16. Principles for weighting and ranking of publications in Denmark TO BE DECIDED • How many journals and publishers should be ’dumped’ from the lists initially? (i.e., low-ranking, low quality or??) • What should the percentage distribution be for e.g., 3 levels of articles (30=low, 60=avg., 20=high)? • What should the difference be between the ranks/levels? • What should the differences be between categories? ? ? ? A Table like this to be filled: *Only the thesis part, not the papers

More Related