Bringing arts and humanities perspectives to the redefinition of ”what counts” in research(er) evaluation | DARIAH Open
flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2022-01-26
Summary:
by Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra
Research assessment (i.e. decisions on allocation of research funds, academic career advancement, and the hiring of staff) has been recognized as the Achilles heel of firmly grounding Open Science practices in research realities for a long while now. In academia scholars are still facing conflicting injunctions and have to walk on both paved and unpaved paths while advocacy and research policy efforts repeatedly point out enormous complexities, systemic impediments and failed attempts in upscaling thoughtful, alternative proxies that could replace the the current harmful system dominated by publisher prestige.
As an example of the many voices urging and supporting this change, in DARIAH’s response to the the stakeholder consultation on the Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication European Commission report in 2019, we argue that the vicious circle in which research evaluation is lingering can only be broken through a set of urgent and harmonized actions and call for a new social contract between on the European level involving funders, research performing institutions and their ministries, university networks, disciplinary communities and research infrastructure providers (including publishers).