scholarly journals The New Research Assessment Reform in China and Its Implementation

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Research Assessment ◽  
Assessment Reform ◽  
New Research

scholarly journals The new research assessment reform in China and its implementation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Gunnar Sivertsen
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Assessment Reform ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Radical Reform ◽  
International Experiences ◽  
New Research

A radical reform of research assessment was recently launched in China. It seeks to replace a focus on Web of Science-based indicators with a balanced combination of qualitative and quantitative research evaluation, and to strengthen the local relevance of research in China. It trusts the institutions to implement the policy within a few months but does not provide the necessary national platforms for coordination, influence and collaboration on developing shared tools and information resources and for agreement on definitions, criteria and protocols for the procedures. Based on international experiences, this article provides constructive ideas for the implementation of the new policy.

scholarly journals Democratizing Health Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fraser Terry ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Cultural Barriers ◽  
World Health ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
The World ◽  
New Research ◽  
And Training

Is it fair that researchers and policymakers in low-income countries have to pay to read new research on diseases they treat? Today's guest is Robert Terry from the World Health Organization’s Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), where he works as a manager of research policy. His background is from both the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust. For Terry, achieving open access requires addressing barriers across political, technical and cultural barriers, with the culture of research assessment and reward needing the biggest change to democratizing science. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. This episode was first published 16 December 2019.

scholarly journals Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 305-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Schuck-Zöller ◽  
Jörg Cortekar ◽  
Daniela Jacob
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Climate Services ◽  
General Evaluation ◽  
New Research

Abstract. Basic research in the natural sciences rests on a long tradition of evaluation. However, since the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) came out in 2012, there has been intense discussion in the natural sciences, above all amongst researchers and funding agencies in the different fields of applied research and scientific service. This discussion was intensified when climate services and other fields, used to make users participate in research and development activities (co-creation), demanded new evaluation methods appropriate to this new research mode. This paper starts by describing a comprehensive and interdisciplinary literature overview of indicators to evaluate co-creation of knowledge, including the different fields of integrated knowledge production. Then the authors harmonize the different elements of evaluation from literature in an evaluation cascade that scales down from very general evaluation dimensions to tangible assessment methods. They describe evaluation indicators already being documented and include a mixture of different assessment methods for two exemplary criteria. It is shown what can be deduced from already existing methodology for climate services and envisaged how climate services can further to develop their specific evaluation method.

What is taken for granted in autism research?

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Ilana Friedner
Keyword(s):  
Research Methodologies ◽  
Communicative Practices ◽  
Autism Research ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
The Social ◽  
New Research

Abstract This commentary focuses on three points: the need to consider semiotic ideologies of both researchers and autistic people, questions of commensurability, and problems with “the social” as an analytical concept. It ends with a call for new research methodologies that are not deficit-based and that consider a broad range of linguistic and non-linguistic communicative practices.

The Need Inventory of Sensation Seeking (NISS)

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Roth ◽  
Philipp Hammelstein
Keyword(s):  
Sensation Seeking ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Factorial Structure ◽  
Conventional Methods ◽  
New Research ◽  
Sensation Seeking Scale ◽  
Temperamental Trait ◽  
Nonclinical Study

Based on the conception of sensation seeking as a need rather than a temperamental trait ( Hammelstein, 2004 ), we present a new assessment method, the Need Inventory of Sensation Seeking (NISS), which is considered to assess a motivational disposition. Three studies are presented: The first examined the factorial structure and the reliability of the German versions of the NISS; the second study compared the German and the English versions of the NISS; and finally, the validity of the NISS was examined in a nonclinical study and compared to the validity of conventional methods of assessing sensation seeking (Sensation Seeking Scale – Form V; SSS-V). Compared to the SSS-V, the NISS shows better reliability and validity in addition to providing new research possibilities including application in experimental areas.

The Psychophysiology of Anxiety and Mood Disorders

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Lang ◽  
Lisa M. McTeague ◽  
Margaret M. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Brain Function ◽  
Physiological Reactivity ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Psychophysiological Reactivity ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
New Research ◽  
Research Domain

Abstract. Several decades of research are reviewed, assessing patterns of psychophysiological reactivity in anxiety patients responding to a fear/threat imagery challenge. Findings show substantive differences in these measures within principal diagnostic categories, questioning the reliability and categorical specificity of current diagnostic systems. Following a new research framework (US National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], Research Domain Criteria [RDoC]; Cuthbert & Insel, 2013 ), dimensional patterns of physiological reactivity are explored in a large sample of anxiety and mood disorder patients. Patients’ responses (e.g., startle reflex, heart rate) during fear/threat imagery varied significantly with higher questionnaire measured “negative affect,” stress history, and overall life dysfunction – bio-marking disorder groups, independent of Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM). The review concludes with a description of new research, currently underway, exploring brain function indices (structure activation, circuit connectivity) as potential biological classifiers (collectively with the reflex physiology) of anxiety and mood pathology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document