We are pleased to announce the formation of an international advisory board to provide strategic guidance to DORA and to further our vision of advancing practical and robust approaches to research assessment globally and across all disciplines.
DORA announces slides for its supporters!
We are pleased to share three slide-decks with the DORA community! Science is communicated in part through presentations, and we hope that our supporters will feel empowered to initiate conversations about research assessment whenever they give a talk. We have three options available for download.
Signing DORA is a mandatory requirement for the journals indexed by Redalyc
Many journals play a significant role in regional academic communication in Latin America. The research they publish has profound societal impacts that improve the quality of life in the local community. We fear these journals are at risk of disappearing, because their sustainability increasingly relies on where they are ranked within Web of Science or Scopus.
Why DORA Is More Important Than Ever—a Perspective From an Early-career Scientist
As a graduate student, I signed DORA to speak out against the misuse of the impact factor. Even with my career before me, I knew that something about the way research was being evaluated in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions needed to change. I had wanted to be evaluated based on the quality of my research, how it was re-used by my colleagues around the world, and how others shared and discussed it online.
Publishing and Research Assessment: A conversation with Sir Philip Campbell
Research articles are one of the main outputs of scholarly research and factor heavily in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions in academia. On September 11, the chair of the DORA steering committee, Prof. Stephen Curry, interviewed the Editor-in-Chief of Springer Nature, Sir Phillip Campbell, about the role of publishers in research assessment.
#sfDORA Interviews: Research Evaluation and Publishing
In celebration of DORA’s fifth anniversary, we are hosting a four-part interview series that focuses on the implementation of good practices in research assessment. We are pleased to announce our third interview is with Sir Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Springer Nature. He will answer questions about the role of publishing in research evaluation. There will be an opportunity for participants to ask questions.
Preprints in Academic Hiring
Preprints are good for science and the evaluation of scientists. They remove barriers to the dissemination of work among the scientific community, promoting earlier error detection, increased feedback and the potential for collaboration, faster transfer of ideas among labs and fields, and good practices in evaluation (reading a paper rather than making a snap judgement based on where it’s published).
Funding Decisions at the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance
Obtaining grant funding is often seen as a critical step for career advancement, and the presence or absence of external funding can influence hiring and promotion choices. The Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance has a three-step evaluation process for its awards.
#sfDORA Interviews: Research Evaluation and Funding Decisions
We are pleased to announce our second interview is with Dr. Shahid Jameel, Chief Executive Officer of the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance. He will answer questions about his experience with research evaluation in the life sciences and about making funding decisions at the India Alliance. Participants will have an opportunity to ask questions at the end of the interview.
Simple Questions, Big Insights: Charité Uses Bio-sketch Questions to Recruit Faculty
Charité asks candidates not just to list their top papers, but also to explain their role in each one, and justify why each constitutes a significant advance to research or clinical practice. This helps committees to see beyond brand name journals, and into the specific skills individuals offer. The portal requires applicants provide a short summary describing how they have pursued the objectives of Open Science including preregistration of studies and publication of negative results. They also outline important collaborative projects, and interactions with stakeholders in industry, patient care, and policy. Questions like these provide insight into individuals’ abilities and personal context, which neither publication lists nor journal impact factors can provide.