The perennial dispute between quantitative and qualitative research assessment is once again heating up.
The match-up this time:
Evaluative scientometrics
vs
CoARA
🔓 The forced battle between peer-review and scientometric research assessment
https://t.co/ppHfL5IFYI
Are you thinking about doing a PhD? Interested in psychology/hearing conditions in children? Then check out this fully funded PhD studentship: https://t.co/tY5xnLLWvZ
Because of work done by @barbala_o this summer, we have a lot more material on the Trial Forge website to help trialists design more inclusive trials:
https://t.co/gwTsmWJqcP
#inclusive
@hug_sven and variability in review quality is known (and a problem). We need people to keep improving reviews and the datasets on which the tools build their knowledge-base.
@hug_sven OpenAI and LLMs used as tools can support some writing activities (grammar/spell-checks; styles) but discerning accuracy and quality (as defined depending on context and aim of the assessment) is in human hands. Reviews by tools will be only as good as previous reviews, 1/2
Andrea #Love produces reels of stop-motion animation with fibres. This production is incredibly detailed and makes a great stop-motion theme. Well done, Andrea. 🥞🧇🍳🥚🍊🧊 👏 .@andreaanimates
Yay! The talks from the @UniStrathclyde#ResearchIntegrity event are now up on YouTube. My offering on 7 priorities for improving research culture through assessment is at 59 minutes in. Thanks to @helyoung1 for making this work! https://t.co/8UyyAig7B6
Finding the right journal for your article is always tricky (especially for PhDs and early career researchers).
Here are 10 tools that will help you find the perfect home for your article:
Another study confirms the importance of clear guidelines in peer review: "To improve peer review, training reviewers and giving clear instructions and guidelines on what journals want from a review will be helpful." https://t.co/EmhCUJLJjv