Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Malgorzata Lagisz, Joanna Rutkowska, Upama Aich, Robert M Ross, Manuela S Santana, Joshua Wang, Nina Trubanova, Matthew J Page, Andrew Adrian Yu Pua, Yefeng Yang, Bawan Amin, April Robin Martinig, Adrian Barnett, Aswathi Surendran, Ju Zhang, David N Borg, Jafsia Elisee, James G Wrightson, Shinichi Nakagawa
{"title":"Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science","authors":"Malgorzata Lagisz, Joanna Rutkowska, Upama Aich, Robert M Ross, Manuela S Santana, Joshua Wang, Nina Trubanova, Matthew J Page, Andrew Adrian Yu Pua, Yefeng Yang, Bawan Amin, April Robin Martinig, Adrian Barnett, Aswathi Surendran, Ju Zhang, David N Borg, Jafsia Elisee, James G Wrightson, Shinichi Nakagawa","doi":"10.1101/2023.12.11.571170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the \"best\" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.","PeriodicalId":501568,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.11.571170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.
最佳论文奖缺乏透明度、包容性和对开放科学的支持
奖项可以推动学术生涯。它们也反映了科学界的文化和价值观。但是,奖项是否能激励科学界提高透明度、多样性和开放性?我们对 SCImago 所有 27 个学科领域的 222 篇 "最佳 "期刊论文进行了跨学科调查,结果显示,管理此类奖项的期刊和学术团体通常很少公布其程序和标准的详细信息。奖项说明很简短,很少包括详细的联系方式或提名库信息。没有明确鼓励提名代表性不足的群体,评估标准中几乎没有与开放科学相一致的概念。相反,此类奖项越来越依赖于文章层面的影响指标。在获奖者中,美国本土研究人员占多数(48%),而来自全球南部和发展中国家的研究人员并不多见(11%)。61%的个人获奖者为男性。因此,最佳论文奖与全球要求提高透明度和公平获得学术认可的呼声背道而驰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信