http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-7027
Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeResearchers and Traditional Outputs
Posted by hhoar on 22 Nov 2021 at 15:46 GMT
This paragraph has given me pause for thought, you say:
"Many now view wider dissemination and public engagement with science to be a fundamental element of open science. However, there is a paradox at play here, for while there have never been more avenues for the widespread dissemination of research, researchers tend nonetheless to value and focus upon just a few traditional outputs: journal articles, books, and conference presentations."
But there is more to it than academics clinging to these traditional outputs. I have often heard of collegues at my teaching focused institute carrying out studies which are not written up in these formats. A heavy teaching load means there is no time to get the publications written up and these research outputs are lost. It might get published in a practice journal and be impactful research, but if it is not in a peer reviewed journal it does not count. It's not necessarily the academics are clinging to traditional outputs, the financing system for research is.
We had some excellent research impact which we could not include in REF because it was not published in the format required. If wider dissemination is valued perhaps there is a case for changing what formats of write up are valued.