Are things that academia values, the most important things in modern science? & I argue probably not. I hope this can change: many people are doing valuable technical work & they are - & should be able to stay - a part of science.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown power of open data and analytics in research, but these activities often aren't recognised in traditional academic metrics. New perspective piece with & : . I'd also like to highlight some examples... 1/
From a perspective piece by , & : "By ensuring crucial analytical activities-and the people who do them-are valued in academia, we can enable a more collaborative, impactful and sustainable future for science"
I wish people in charge would read this excellent commentary by et al. : The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science
The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science via et al
A pandemic is a great time to re-think what we we should value, and what academia prioritizes is not necessarily what is best for science or society. Thoughtful reflection from and Rosalind Eggo
"By ensuring crucial analytical activities—and the people who do them—are valued in academia, we can enable a more collaborative, impactful and sustainable future for science." in
"But as with other simple performance metrics, measurements that were designed to track activity have instead become measurements that shape it." that's what tends to happen when numbers are taken too literally and too seriously
The #COVID19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of open & collaborative research. &co maintain that to increase the impact & sustainability of modern science, these non-trad scholarly outputs must be valued in academia #PLOSBiology
Important note from , , & in #PLOSBiology: "The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science."
The COVID19 response illustrates traditional academic reward structures & metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science - incl analytical work, eg ensuring reproducible code, developing tools, sharing data, disseminating to wide audiences
COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science. Good piece by - COVID may accelerate efforts to improve culture and incentives in academia
Great piece by et al. "By ensuring crucial analytical activities—and the people who do them—are valued in academia, we can enable a more collaborative, impactful and sustainable future for science."
“The COVID-19 pandemic has motivated many open and collaborative analytical research projects with real-world impact. However, despite their value, such activities are generally overlooked by traditional academic metrics.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has motivated many open & collaborative analytical research projects with real-world impact. Despite their value, such activities are generally overlooked by traditional academic metrics. Kucharski et al argue this needs to change.
ARGUMENT against traditional measures of success in academia: "To increase the impact and sustainability of modern science, it will be crucial to ensure these analytical activities—and the people who do them—are valued in academia."