Akademisk skriving? For forskarar?

PhD on Track is a web resource aimed primarily at PhD candidates and early career researchers. The ambition is to provide an accessible point of departure for beginning researchers related to searching and reviewing scholarly literature, and to sharing and publishing reports and data.It can be challenging for new candidates (or even for experienced researchers) to find their way in the tangle of new guidelines and practices on openness, data management, publishing, and adjoining issues. PhD on Track is intended to help, by collecting and organising in one resource, providing an overview of the most essential information. In our poster, we wish to focus on recent major revisions to the resource, and in particular on the new module Open Science. Revisions were made in response to important developments regarding new national and international guidelines on open publishing and data management, and in open science in general. PhD on Track, and the new Open Science module in particular, collects and organises relevant information – and discusses some of the fundamental issues on open access publishing, open archives, research data, and data management, including how to make data management plans and how to handle sensitive data. There are also sections on pre-registration, research ethics, copyright issues, and research assessment.PhD on Track is an open, freely available resource that was originally launched in 2013, as a co-operation between Norwegian and Danish institutions. From 2017, it is operated by 6 Norwegian institutions: the four university libraries in Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim, and Tromsø, in addition to the libraries at NHH Norwegian School of Economics Library and Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. While PhD on Track provides more detail on Norwegian policies and guidelines, it has been designed with an international audience in mind. It will be relaunched in the autumn of 2018.

Background: There is a growing global movement towards open science and ensuring that health research is more transparent. It is vital that the researchers are adequately prepared for this research environment from early in their careers. However, the barriers and enablers to practicing open science for early career researchers (ECRs) have been explored to a limited extent. This study aimed to explore the views, experiences and factors influencing open science practices amongst ECRs working in health research. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of ECRs working in health research. Participants also completed surveys regarding the factors influencing open science practices. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive statistical analyses were used to analyse survey data. Results: 14 ECRs participated. Two main themes were identified from interview data; Valuing Open Science and Creating a Culture for Open Science. Within ‘Valuing Open Science’, participants spoke about the conceptualisation of open science to be open across the entire research cycle, and important for producing better and more impactful research for patients and the public. Within ‘Creating a Culture of Open Science’ participants spoke about a number of factors influencing their practice of open science. These included cultural and academic pressures, the positives and negatives of increased accountability and transparency, and the need for more training and supporting resources to facilitate open science practices. Conclusion: ECRs see the importance of open science for beneficially impacting patient and public health but many feel that they are not fully supported to practice open science. Resources and supports including education and training are needed, as are better incentives for open science activities. Crucially, tangible engagement from institutions, funders and researchers is needed to facilitate the development of an open science culture.

Open Science in Suicide Research Is Open for Business.

Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.

On behalf of the Euro-Asia Tourism Studies Journal (EATSJ), as Chief Editor, I am delighted to announce the publication of Volume 5 Issue 1 (2024). This current issue is an outcome of our 10th Euro Asia Tourism Studies Association (EATSA) Conference, held in Karlsruhe, Germany (8th-12th July 2024). It is also to review the journal’s mission and sustainability, in fostering scientific collaborations of our members. At the Conference, challenges facing our journal were discussed. Like most journals, we faced a lack of peer reviewers. This has hindered our progress and raised questions to its sustainability. As has been discussed at the Tourism Research Information Network (Trinet), there has been a diminishing pool of peer reviewers. This could be attributed to increased academic teaching workloads, the need to prioritise securing research funding, and perhaps most significantly, the pressure to publish in top tiered Scopus listed journals, due to institutional requirements. However, it is common knowledge that only about 10% of submitted articles eventually get published. This is where EATSJ’s mission can help realise the rejected 90%, as it is currently Italian indexed, with Indian and Hungarian indexation being processed. Our mission is to be Scopus indexed. This editorial has three purposes. Firstly, it seeks to remind our members of our journal’s mission, namely, to foster, inspire and elevate the next generation of researchers on European and Asian tourism issues. Second, our journal primarily seeks to critically advance broader tourism related World issues. The key aim is to provide a platform for EATSA members to foster collaborations and publish their work, especially for our junior European and Asian researchers (Early Career Researchers (ECR), PhD and Masters candidates) to realise their academic potentials. We strive to achieve this by providing constructive comments and feedback. This can be valuable for the next generation of potential academics, with the hope that they then in turn become peer reviewers, which can help sustain EATSJ. More importantly, our purpose is to achieve high Eurasian scientific standards at EATSJ. Even though we did not receive many papers for this issue, it is the quality of papers that we focused on. Of the six papers in this volume, one is a revised version of a keynote speech, one conference proceedings, two PhD candidates’ papers, and mot impressively, two undergraduates’ papers. Lastly, this journal seeks to provide scientific insights into significant emerging post-pandemic tourism themes (from ‘no-tourism’ to ‘overtourism’ again, because of ‘revenge tourism’), as tourism continues to impact politics and vice versa. Further themes include the increasing issues with AI in hospitality and tourism, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) geopolitical impacts on tourism, the implications of the ongoing war in the Middle East and Ukraine, and most recently, the forthcoming impacts and implications of the Trump Presidency 2.0 on World tourism. I welcome these and other broader tourism related Eurasian/World scientific themes. It is with the support and collaboration of our EATSA members, that I hope to advance the mission and sustainability of EATSJ.

This poster presents possibilities and issues concerning the new wave of Artifical Intelligence (AI)-based services and tools entering academia aimed to help researchers and students. Iris.ai, semanticscholar.org, yewno.com, connectedpapers.com, researchrabbit.ai, www.paper-digest.com, openknowled-gemaps.org, and keenious.com, are all examples of services part of a complex landscape of educational and research support resources driven by AI. Unfortunately, researchers and students have very few arenas to learn about all the aspects of using those resources. Trust, ethics, interpretability and reliability, are all topics to be addressed when using those tools (Guidotti et al., 2018). Moreover, the lack of possibility to test and influence how literature is analyzed and new knowledge created by AI-based services, is an emerging concern in various academic libraries (Gasparini & Kautonen, 2016). The increasing production of fake science in AI-based papermills implies new challenges for academic quality control and for the accountability and reliability of research as a whole (Løkeland-Stai, 2022). The poster proposes to use the site PhD-on-track (https://www.phdontrack.net/, Faber et al., 2018), one of the preferred starting points for new PhD candidates and early career researchers, to contextualize AI-based services in researchers’ literature search and analysis. PhD on Track aims to enable PhD candidates from all academic fields to easily access information on different aspects of open science and support academic integrity in their research practices. By addressing AI-based services and tools in an early stage, PhD on Track will contribute to avoid opacity and clarify non-intuitive aspects of the use of technology in research. Furthermore, we argue for the possibility that these technical innovations will change the workflows of researchers and students. Academia needs to react to this development, offer a framework and support a shift of focus on AI-based services from the micro level (users) to a wider institutional one (the university). The poster will present the following issues and questions, with respective possible reactions and solutions: What is the minimum level of competence PhD candidates should have about machine learning and deep learning? How should PhD candidates choose reliable AI-based services? When and where should PhD candidates and researchers gather reliable information about AI-based services? How should academic libraries support access to repositories of Open Access articles? How should universities ensure the correct use of AI-based tools? How can universities and academic libraries address ethical questions which may be raised by the increasing availability and use of AI-based tools?

How the Biochemical Society and Portland Press are engaging with and supporting early career researchers

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

Watch the VIDEO.Over the last two decades several research institutions have created policies which target Open Access to publications and research data, and are now moving on to Open Science from a wider perspective. These policies formulate an ambition with references to reality. This reality might look good on paper however, the challenge is to make this vision work at the individual and research group level.One way to bring these visions forward is to activate and grow a network of institutional Open Science practitioners and enthusiasts – by involving researchers, librarians, research managers/administrators and others, and creating opportunities for exchange and collaboration. In particular early career researchers will have very concrete ideas on what works for them, what is missing and what their challenges are when stepping into Open Science practices. The University of Göttingen is committed to make research results accessible and reusable for academia and the wider society. Its revised OA policy dates from 2016 (the first version dates from 2005) and the research data policy from 2014 [1].These policies serve as a reference point for desired practices as well as existing and emerging service areas. However, often these policies may not play an explicit role in researchers’ day-to-day practices – some elements may already be part of “normal science” while others have not been fully implemented yet.The presentation will focus on the practical vision and establishment of the Göttingen Open Science Meet-ups [2], as well as experiences and lessons learned from nearly two years of operation (at the time of the Munin conference). The initiative was launched in Autumn 2016 by a group of librarians. We will elaborate on how we reach out to and work with early career researchers, and what types of meetings are requested, e.g. informal technology-focused meetings (Hacky Hour Göttingen [3]). Moreover, we will provide some insight into how the sessions facilitate learning together and from each other (both in terms of topics as well as mind sets). From the library perspective there are also opportunities to link Open Science learning to service areas, in particular where new demands emerge, and to make existing services better known.Last, but not least, the Open Science network facilitated by these meet-ups provides opportunities to better link institutional policies with researchers’ practices – in particular, through discussions on opportunities and how to overcome obstacles as well as how to increase benefits and incentives. To this end, although the meet-ups mainly aim at strengthening a bottom-up approach, they also provide opportunities to inspire next steps for Open Science from a leadership perspective and to lift emerging good practices to a higher level.

The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4‐year‐long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make‐up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.Key points ECRs from China, Russia, France, and Malaysia are more likely to hold different (although moderate) views in respect to a scholarly activity. ECRs from the UK and USA are similar in many respects, including being positive towards open science and relying less on external factors (impact factor or number of download) for their decision to read a paper. French ECRs appear not to want to do, abide, or follow anything novel or innovative and are very critical of scholarly developments. Spanish ECRs are innovative and more positive about publishing open access (OA), while Chinese ECRs are somewhat conservative as they are less likely to publish in OA Chinese ECRs are the highest users of social media for testing and conducting research but least likely to use it to share their reputations or build reputations.

Open science (OS) is currently dominated by a small subset of practices that occur late in the scientific process. Early career researchers (ECRs) will play a key role in transitioning the scientific community to more widespread use of OS from pre-registration to publication, but they also face unique challenges in adopting these practices. Here, we discuss these challenges across the OS life cycle. Our essay relies on the published literature, an informal survey of 32 ECRs from 14 countries, and discussions among members of the Global Working Group on Open Science (Global Young Academy and National Young Academies). We break the OS life cycle into four stages—study design and tracking (pre-registration, open processes), data collection (citizen science, open hardware, open software, open data), publication (open access publishing, open peer review, open data), and outreach (open educational resources, citizen science)—and map potential barriers at each stage. The most frequently discussed barriers across the OS life cycle were a lack of awareness and training, prohibitively high time commitments, and restrictions and/or a lack of incentives by supervisors. We found that OS practices are highly fragmented and that awareness is particularly low for OS practices that occur during the study design and tracking stage, possibly creating ‘path-dependencies’ that reduce the likelihood of OS practices at later stages. We note that, because ECRs face unique barriers to adopting OS, there is a need for specifically targeted policies such as mandatory training at the graduate level and promotion incentives.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are of great interest because they are the new (and biggest) wave of researchers. They merit long and detailed investigation, and towards this end, this overarching paper provides a summary of the first-year findings of a 3-year, longitudinal study of 116 science and social science ECRs who have published nearly 1,200 papers and come from 7 countries and 81 universities. ECRs were interviewed in their own languages face-to-face, by Skype, or telephone. The study focused on the attitudes and behaviours of ECRs with respect to scholarly communications and the extent to which they are adopting new and disruptive technologies, such as social media, online communities, and Open Science. The main findings include: publishing in high-impact factor journals is the only reputational game in town; online scholarly communities, and ResearchGate in particular, are gaining ground; social media are beginning to have an impact, especially in the dissemination arena; outreach activities have become more important; libraries are becoming increasingly invisible to ECRs; Open Science is not gaining traction; and more transformational ideas are being expressed, especially in the US and UK.

How can publishers support early career journal editors?

Educational design research (EDR) is described as a complex research approach. The challenges resulting from this complexity are typically described as procedural, whereas EDR might also be challenging for different reasons, specifically for early career researchers. Yet challenging experiences may be noteworthy in the process of learning to do research and becoming a researcher. To explore this issue further, we engaged in a collaborative self-study, and conducted a narrative cross-case analysis of two PhD candidates’ experiences of engaging in EDR, focusing on challenges and learning outcomes. We find indications that the challenges of EDR might be more related to EDR’s relatively new and minority position in educational sciences and the role a (early career) researcher needs to assume in EDR. Retrospectively, the challenges appear closely related to learning outcomes, which are described in terms of a more profound understanding of research (quality) and of oneself as a researcher. As such, insights gained by self-study of research practices provide a complementary perspective to existing literature on EDR and becoming a researcher.

How development supports early career researchers.