Sponsored content
Product Spotlight
g
Trusted content and precision analytics
From developing an innovative research strategy to assessing the impact of your organisation, Inspec combines trusted content with precision analytics to help you accelerate breakthroughs, solve societal challenges and make an impact on a global stage.
Inspec is an authoritative publisher-neutral resource for accessing scientific literature. Whether you’re looking for inspiration for your next research project or compiling a comprehensive literature review, your journey starts with Inspec.
Containing more than 22 million records of scientific research literature, with Inspec you can: • Pinpoint relevant literature easily with precise, subject-specific indexing. • Discover the latest research from global publications selected for quality and relevance. • Save time with DOI links to full-text articles, including fully Open Access content.
Inspec users spend 25% less time on literature searches than users of the leading free scholarly search engine.
(A survey of more than 350 researchers, conducted by the IET, showed that researchers who use Inspec spend approximately two hours less on literature searches on average.)
Analyse research trends, patterns, and impact at a granular level
The precise indexing for content in Inspec powers Inspec Analytics, our dynamic and intuitive research intelligence tool. Inspec Analytics utilizes powerful semantic mapping to identify trends and patterns across the global research that is indexed in Inspec.
Inspec and Inspec Analytics are available via a range of vendor platforms, including EBSCO Host, Elsevier Engineering Village, OvidSP, ProQuest Dialog and Clarivate Web of Science.
Find out more: Tel: + 44 (0) 1438 767328 Email:
sales@theiet.org Web:
theiet.org/inspec
brilliant opportunity, if the sector works together, to develop metrics in a much more sophisticated way: ‘Our whole mission is around equity and a fairer and more equitable environment, so that all researchers can participate and generate impact and create change as a result of their work, rather than just get published and then move on. ‘We created an impact manifesto back in 2018, and the key thread of that is championing alternatives to traditional academic metrics and traditional rewards. Earlier this year, we relaunched this manifesto to pledge six new commitments for change that will advance ongoing debates around academic culture, incentives and research evaluation, and to call for sector-wide action through our ‘Are you in?’ campaign. ‘We signed DORA in 2018 and we
support a number of initiatives that really promote fair holistic evaluation. Initiatives like The Hidden REF, which recognises all research outputs, and the fact that far more people contribute than the people you see listed on a paper. We have an awards programme that really showcases – and rewards – innovative research that is not just publishing highly cited articles, but actually research that can affect positive change beyond the academy. ‘Our platform is designed to carry lots more than research papers, but the
“We are a long way from getting simple answers, but we are increasingly able to see the complexity of the problem”
research community are still rewarded on the paper or the book. If they were to utilise video assets to generate uptake with particular stakeholder groups, which allowed application and real change, that’s where research metrics could get really interesting. Technology is part of that solution, but it only works if your communities engage with you on it. ‘We’re also working with other publishers. It is a competitive environment, but we do need to work together because we are serving the same research community at the end of the day, so if we can help to develop standards in these areas, that’s a win for everybody and will make adoption by researchers easier.’
Tony Roche, CEO of Emerald Publishing
As more data is collected, and we
more fully understand the complexities of scholarly communications, there is inevitably a need for finding new ways to represent that data and complexity. As Adams noted: ‘There’s a shift away
from looking at just tables of numbers, towards graphical analyses, which provide much more information about what’s happening. The only way to get people to appreciate the complexity of the research environment is to see a picture that involves multiple indicators in one go.’
Conclusion The broadening from wanting to understand the academic impact of research to also wanting to understand the socio-economic impact of research is to be welcomed, but while we undoubtedly have access to more data than ever before, it’s not clear we are any closer to getting a true picture of scholarly communications. The temptation to overly reduce the
complexity of the research ecosystem will always be there for the purposes of policymaking, management decisions, or the increasingly ubiquitous ranking tables, but there are no quick fixes to the problem of measuring research impact. Meaningful metrics have to reflect the
complicated and diverse nature of the research, and they will only emerge when all the different parties work together to discover what is important to their particular community. We are a long way from getting simple
answers, but we are increasingly able to see the complexity of the problem.
@researchinfo |
www.researchinformation.info
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34
