IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science

Author

Listed:
  • Adam J Kucharski
  • Sebastian Funk
  • Rosalind M Eggo

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has motivated many open and collaborative analytical research projects with real-world impact. However, despite their value, such activities are generally overlooked by traditional academic metrics. Science is ultimately improved by analytical work, whether ensuring reproducible and well-documented code to accompany papers, developing and maintaining flexible tools, sharing and curating data, or disseminating analysis to wider audiences. To increase the impact and sustainability of modern science, it will be crucial to ensure these analytical activities—and the people who do them—are valued in academia.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam J Kucharski & Sebastian Funk & Rosalind M Eggo, 2020. "The COVID-19 response illustrates that traditional academic reward structures and metrics do not reflect crucial contributions to modern science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-3, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000913
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000913
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000913&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000913?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "Open Data Resources on COVID-19 in Six European Countries: Issues and Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-18, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Isidore Komla Zotoo & Guifeng Liu & Zhangping Lu & Frank Kofi Essien & Wencheng Su, 2023. "The Impact of Key Stakeholders and the Computer Skills of Librarians on Research Data Management Support Services (Id so-21-1893.r2)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    3. Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    5. Shinichi Nakagawa & Edward R. Ivimey-Cook & Matthew J. Grainger & Rose E. O’Dea & Samantha Burke & Szymon M. Drobniak & Elliot Gould & Erin L. Macartney & April Robin Martinig & Kyle Morrison & Matthi, 2023. "Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, December.
    6. Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez & Daniel J. Lindegger & Ala Taji Heravi & Thomas Stojanov & Martin Sykora & Suzanne Elayan & Stephen J. Mooney & John A. Naslund & Marta Fadda & Oliver Gruebner, 2023. "Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Ginevra Peruginelli & Janne Pölönen, 2024. "The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 670-682.
    8. Yuki Yamada, 2021. "How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    9. Rosie Hastings & Krishma Labib & Iris Lechner & Lex Bouter & Guy Widdershoven & Natalie Evans, 2023. "Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 318-335.
    10. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    11. Gadd, Elizabeth, 2021. "Mis-measuring our universities: how global university rankings don't add up," SocArXiv gxbn5, Center for Open Science.
    12. Chin, Jason & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2021. "Replicability in Empirical Legal Research," LawArXiv 2b5k4, Center for Open Science.
    13. Labib, Krishma, 2024. "Research integrity and research fairness: harmonious or in conflict?," OSF Preprints ygakx, Center for Open Science.
    14. Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten, 2021. "Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    16. Mads P. Sørensen & Tine Ravn & Ana Marušić & Andrea Reyes Elizondo & Panagiotis Kavouras & Joeri K. Tijdink & Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, 2021. "Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Becker, Albrecht & Lukka, Kari, 2023. "Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000913. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.