Open Access Advocacy Archives - Clover Hill Diaries

Understanding the world of research and how we can improve our collaboration rates

In my previous post advocating for Breaking Down the Barriers- the unjust world of academic paywalls I reflected on the ‘ethics of public access to public-funded research.’

I have never been inside the academic tent and I was keen to see what the barriers are for researchers/academics. In my efforts to understand how the universities are currently evaluated I asked an expert to explain the system to me and what a ‘fit for purpose” system could look like to foster an open access mindset

I learnt that academics and researchers, particularly in Australia, often find themselves navigating a complex and demanding system that evaluates their performance across multiple metrics. While these metrics are designed to measure productivity and impact, they can inadvertently place undue pressure on researchers.

Smiling – To find an image for this post I asked my image repository to find an image that shows a “Professor at desk overwhelmed”. Every single picture of the professor was male and elderly.

This is what the expert shared with me to get an appreciation of the challenges we have, to move to an open access system and what needs to change.

“Australian researchers, like those in many other countries, are often evaluated based on a variety of metrics, and their ranking can be influenced by several factors. Here are some key aspects:

Publication Count: The number of research papers an academic writes is a significant factor. Generally, more publications can indicate higher productivity and a larger contribution to the field. However, quantity is not the only measure; the quality and impact of these publications are also crucial.
Citation Metrics: Researchers are often assessed by how often their work is cited by others. Metrics like H-index and i10-index are commonly used. The H-index measures both the productivity and citation impact of a researcher’s publications, while the i10-index counts the number of publications with at least ten citations.
Journal Quality: Where the research is published matters. Papers in high-impact journals are usually seen as more prestigious and can significantly enhance a researcher’s reputation.
Research Impact and Quality: Beyond citations, the actual impact and quality of research are important. This can be harder to quantify but includes factors like the relevance and applicability of the research, as well as its contribution to advancing the field.
Grants and Funding: Success in obtaining competitive research grants, especially from prominent funding bodies, is another measure of a researcher’s standing.
Awards and Recognitions: Awards from reputable organisations can also contribute to a researcher’s ranking.
Peer Review and Editorial Roles: Participation in peer review and editorial duties for journals can also reflect a researcher’s expertise and reputation in their field.
Collaboration and Networking: The extent and nature of a researcher’s collaborations, both nationally and internationally, can also influence their standing.

It’s important to note that while the number of research papers is a significant factor, it’s the combination of these elements that typically contributes to how Australian researchers are ranked. There’s a growing recognition in the academic community that quality, impact, and broader contributions to the field and society are as important, if not more so, than the sheer number of publications.

How the system is changing

Measuring the quality, impact, and broader contributions of academic research, beyond just the count of publications, is a complex task. Here are several methods and metrics that are increasingly being used to assess these aspects:

Altmetrics: This refers to alternative metrics that assess the impact of research in ways beyond traditional citation counts. Altmetrics include social media mentions, article views or downloads, media coverage, policy document references, and other web-based mentions. These metrics can provide a more immediate and diverse measure of the impact and reach of research.
Citation Analysis Beyond Counts: Instead of just counting citations, deeper analysis can be conducted. This includes looking at who is citing the work (to understand its influence across different fields), examining the context of citations, and understanding the longevity of the impact (how long a paper continues to be cited).
Qualitative Reviews: Peer reviews and expert evaluations can provide insights into the quality and significance of research. This can involve assessments by fellow academics, industry experts, or interdisciplinary panels.
Research Impact Narratives: Researchers are increasingly asked to provide narratives or case studies that describe the impact of their work on society, policy, the environment, or the economy. These narratives allow researchers to explain the significance of their work in a broader context.
Public Engagement and Communication: Evaluating how researchers engage with the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders can be an important measure of their broader contributions. This can include public lectures, policy briefs, blogs, or media appearances.
Grant and Award Recognition: Success in obtaining prestigious grants and awards can be a proxy for the quality and relevance of a researcher’s work, as these often involve rigorous peer review processes.
Patents and Commercialisation: For research with commercial applications, the number of patents filed or successful commercial products can be an indicator of impact.
Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Work: The ability to engage in interdisciplinary research and to collaborate effectively across different fields or with industry can also be a measure of a researcher’s broader contribution.
Teaching and Mentorship: The role of researchers in teaching and mentoring the next generation of scholars and practitioners can also be considered, reflecting their contribution to the academic community and society.
Post-Publication Peer Review and Discussion: Platforms that facilitate post-publication peer review and discussion, such as PubPeer or ResearchGate, can provide insights into the ongoing impact and relevance of research.

Incorporating these diverse metrics and methods helps provide a more holistic view of a researcher’s contributions. However, it’s crucial to use these measures thoughtfully, recognising the unique context of each research field and the individual career paths of researchers.”

#OpenAccess #AcademicFreedom #PublicFundedResearch #AcademicPressure #ResearchEthics #OpenScience #KnowledgeSharing #AcademicPublishing #ResearchAccessibility #EducationForAll

Stepping Out to Step Up – The Dual Perspectives of Working Inside and Outside the Agricultural Tent

In the world of agriculture, the balance between insider knowledge and independent action is delicate. While ‘inside the tent’, one gains an intimate understanding of the sector’s intricate challenges, from workforce issues to environmental impacts. This experience is crucial to appreciate the complexities that those within the industry face daily.

Yet, transformative change often stems from those who venture ‘outside the tent’. Independent actors can drive innovation without the constraints of traditional norms. However, this external viewpoint is enriched by an understanding of the internal challenges. It’s easy to criticise from the outside, but real change requires knowing the difficulties faced by those on the inside.

For the farming community, access to both perspectives is vital. By understanding the challenges from within and adopting innovative solutions from outside, the sector can address its self-imposed challenges and move towards a sustainable future.

In essence, a sustainable and productive agricultural future lies in appreciating the challenges from within, while seeking innovative solutions from outside.

#AgriculturalInnovation #InsideOutsidePerspective #SustainableAgriculture #FarmingFuture #AgricultureChallenges #InnovationInFarming #AgriResearch #FarmingCommunity #TransformingAgriculture

Transforming Agriculture – Tackling 28 Key Challenges for a Sustainable Future

Australian agriculture faces significant self-imposed challenges, as highlighted in the paper “The employer of choice or a sector without a workforce?” by Emeritus Professor Jim Pratley and colleagues. You can buy the paper here for $60

These challenges range from the pandemic’s impact on labour to negative stereotypes and a lack of collaboration between the industry and educational institutions. However, these obstacles also present an opportunity for transformation. Addressing the 28 obstacles identified by Professor Pratley (many of which are “own goals”) requires a concerted effort from within the industry, underscoring the need for proactive solutions and internal reforms. This approach could revolutionise the sector, making it more attractive and sustainable. Importantly, making such research more accessible, rather than behind paywalls, can facilitate wider understanding and collaborative problem-solving, benefiting the industry as a whole.

Access to research like “The employer of choice or a sector without a workforce?” is crucial for the farming community. Knowledge is key to progress, and without awareness of the specific challenges outlined in the study, the agricultural sector cannot effectively address them. Knowing “own goals” is the first step in fostering change and improvement. If farmers and industry stakeholders are unaware of the underlying issues, they cannot develop strategies to overcome them. Hence, making such research readily available is not just beneficial but essential for the continuous development and sustainability of the agricultural sector.

#AgricultureRevolution #SustainableFarming #AgriChallenges #FutureOfFarming #AgriculturalInnovation #FarmingCommunity #AgriResearchAccess #AgricultureEducation #FarmWorkforce #AgriculturalSustainability #KnowToGrow #AgriIndustryReform

Breaking Down Barriers – The Unjust World of Academic Paywalls

As someone tirelessly working for the greater good, the reality of coming up against academic paywalls feels like a slap in the face. It’s beyond frustrating — it’s infuriating. In a world where knowledge could be our most powerful tool for change, why are we locking it away behind paywalls, especially when it’s funded by the very public it aims to serve?

Picture this: You’re dedicated to making a difference, working voluntarily, pouring your heart and soul into a cause. But every turn of your journey is blocked by a paywall demanding money for access to research that should rightfully be in the public domain. Isn’t it ironic that the research meant to benefit society is so often barricaded behind these pay-to-access schemes?

Australia has one of the lowest collaboration rates in the OECD

““Everyone I talk to believes that the problem is academics … their incentives are very much associated with publish or perish.” Malcolm Turnbull.

Let’s talk about the audacity of double-charging. Our taxes fund groundbreaking research, and then we’re expected to pay again to read the results? It’s like paying for a meal twice and still leaving hungry. This isn’t just unfair — it’s unethical, and it’s stalling progress.

And let’s not forget the global implications. How can we talk about global progress when a significant part of the world is barred from accessing vital research? This isn’t just a barrier; it’s a towering wall, preventing those in resource-limited settings from contributing to or benefiting from global scientific advancements.

The traditional publishing model seems to have forgotten the primary purpose of research — to spread knowledge, not to hoard it for profit. The commercialisation of academic knowledge is not just a hurdle; it’s a minefield for those of us trying to navigate the path to enlightenment and improvement.

The open access movement can’t just be a quiet revolution; it needs to be a loud, ground-shaking demand. We need open access to tear down these barriers, to democratise knowledge, and to truly serve the public good.

To those who hide behind the ‘quality and peer review’ argument to justify paywalls, I say this: Open access doesn’t mean open floodgates for poor research. Numerous open access platforms maintain rigorous peer review processes. This excuse is wearing thin.

We need policies that reflect the ethics of public access to public-funded research. It’s high time governments and institutions step up, aligning legal frameworks with what’s morally right.

The fight against academic paywalls is more than a struggle for information; it’s a battle for justice, equity, and the collective progress of humanity. We cannot — and should not — accept a system that hinders the flow of knowledge and stalls the greater good. It’s time to tear down these walls.