German paper chase to end

Quirin Schiermeier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/4631009a

IF: 64.8

2010-02-01

Nature

Abstract:Funding agency cuts number of publications needed for grant applications.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals

Dalmeet Singh Chawla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03106-w

IF: 64.8

2024-10-08

Nature

Abstract:One of Germany's biggest research-funding organizations is hoping 'distributed peer review' can help to tackle the reviewer shortage. One of Germany's biggest research-funding organizations is hoping 'distributed peer review' can help to tackle the reviewer shortage.

multidisciplinary sciences
The quest to fund research: playing research lotto

Michelle Cleary,Garry Walter,Glenn Hunt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1665.2006.02286.x

Abstract:Objective: To provide some direction for those interested in obtaining funding with the purpose of highlighting opportunities for beginner researchers in the health-care field. Method: Features of a good grant application are described and an audit of seven mental health professional journals was undertaken, the latter to determine, inter alia, whether the paper reported research findings and whether the authors received formal research funding. Result: The audit revealed that many types of papers that are published do not receive formal research funding and describe, for example, services, training issues, clinical practice and education programmes. Conclusion: Innovative and enterprising efforts are required to secure clinical research funding. Submissions must be detailed, comprehensive and relevant, but the onus is also on the researcher to ensure a feasible study, where funding obligations can be fulfilled and findings readily disseminated. Many research studies are conducted without achieving competitive funding, and getting published--and getting started in writing--does not hinge on conducting formal research or receiving research funding.
Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

A Blümle,G Antes,M Schumacher,H Just,E von Elm,A Blumle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024521

2008-09-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied.METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications.RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151).CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Chinese scientists say funding shake-up has made it harder to win grants

Gemma Conroy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03207-6

IF: 64.8

2024-10-30

Nature

Abstract:Applications have soared, but the success rate for key grants has dropped since last year. Applications have soared, but the success rate for key grants has dropped since last year.

multidisciplinary sciences
Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

Marcus F. Oliveira,Adriane R. Todeschini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00916-w

IF: 64.8

2024-03-26

Nature

Abstract:Letter to the Editor

multidisciplinary sciences
Academic publishing and collaboration between China and Germany in physics

Ping Zhou,Xiaozan Lv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1643-1

IF: 3.801

2015-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded ( SCIE ) of Thomson Reuters, we explored China–Germany collaboration in physics from perspectives including publication profiles, collaboration effect, as well as active institutions and active fields. We found that German researchers are more capable of publishing higher-quality papers than Chinese counterparts. Both China and Germany get benefit from collaboration in raising publication productivity. The collaboration helps improve Chinese researchers’ citation impact and capability of publishing in higher-quality journals. Research capacities of German institutions are more evenly distributed than Chinese counterparts. Chinese institutions that are most active in collaborating with German counterparts are mainly those in leading positions in China, whereas those in disadvantageous situation are still isolated from the international community.
An Overview of Academic Publishing and Collaboration Between China and Germany

Ping Zhou,Lutz Bornmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1418-0

IF: 3.801

2014-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:In the past 30 years, publications from either China or Germany have increased exponentially with China growing much faster especially in the natural sciences, engineering and technology. In medical and health sciences, however, China still lags behind Germany in terms of publication production. Germany performs better in producing high-quality papers (measured by citations). Collaboration between the two countries has increased significantly, especially in the natural sciences and engineering and technology, but less so in medical and health sciences. Collaboration between China and Germany may help to raise quality of Chinese research in terms of highly cited papers.
Paper trail

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado0309

IF: 56.9

2024-01-20

Science

Abstract:In the latest twist of the publishing arms race, firms churning out fake papers have taken to bribing journal editors

multidisciplinary sciences
German funders’ data sharing policies—A qualitative interview study

Michael Anger,Christian Wendelborn,Christoph Schickhardt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296956

IF: 3.7

2024-02-08

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Data sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders’ data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders’ data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing. Methods This study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German’ funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages. Results We present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees’ perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders’ data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements. Discussion and conclusion Although funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.

multidisciplinary sciences
What steps to take when funding starts to run out

Neil Savage

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01570-y

IF: 64.8

2024-05-25

Nature

Abstract:Although researchers often face uncertainty when grants expire with no replacement in sight, there are creative ways to ease the dry spell. Although researchers often face uncertainty when grants expire with no replacement in sight, there are creative ways to ease the dry spell.

multidisciplinary sciences
Final spending bills offer gloomy outlook for science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp0476

IF: 56.9

2024-03-08

Science

Abstract:Congress makes sizable cuts at key funding agencies

multidisciplinary sciences
Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars

Fabian Scheidegger,Andre Briviba,Bruno S. Frey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04772-9

IF: 3.801

2023-06-22

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract Bibliometric measurements are becoming omnipresent and crucially important for academic career decisions. The measured criteria induce strong incentives to align academics’ time and efforts. Based on a survey of economics and business scholars in German-speaking countries, this article empirically explores the interactions between scientific journal metrics and the behavior of authors in the publishing process. The impact different types of pressure have on their decisions is emphasized. In line with rational choice, authors generally move down in journal ranking as they resubmit their papers. While the process is highly influenced by random elements, the Scimago journal rank provides the best fit to researcher’s behavior. Doctoral students initially submit to lower ranked journals compared to higher academic positions, which is likely due to the time pressure they face. The empirical findings improve our understanding of strategic responses in the scientific publishing process. Qualified lotteries, along with other propositions, are suggested to mitigate adverse responses by academics.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape

Niels Taubert,Linda Sterzik,Andre Bruns

2023-06-23

Abstract:In the current scientific and political discourse surrounding the transformation of the scientific publication system, significant attention is focused on Diamond Open Access (OA). This article explores the potential and challenges of Diamond OA journals, using Germany as a case study. Two questions are addressed: first, the current role of such journals in the scientific publication system is determined through bibliometric analysis across various disciplines. Second, an investigation is conducted to assess the sustainability of Diamond OA journals and identify associated structural problems or potential breaking points. This investigation includes an in-depth expert interview study involving 20 editors of Diamond OA journals. The empirical results are presented using a landscape map that considers two dimensions: 'monetized and gift-based completion of tasks' and 'journal team size.' The bibliometric analysis reveals a substantial number of Diamond OA journals in the social sciences and humanities, but limited adoption in other fields. The model proves effective for small to mid-sized journals, but not for larger ones. Additionally, it was found that 23 Diamond OA journals have recently discontinued their operations. The expert interviews demonstrate the usefulness of the two dimensions in understanding key differences. Journals in two of the four quadrants of the map exemplify sustainable conditions, while the other two quadrants raise concerns about long-term stability. These concerns include limited funding leading to a lack of division of labor and an excessive burden on highly committed members. These findings underscore the need for the development of more sustainable funding models to ensure the success of Diamond OA journals.

Digital Libraries
Funding Frontier Research: Mission Accomplished?

Thomas Koenig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v11i1.640

2015-02-27

Journal of Contemporary European Research

Abstract:Despite many warning voices pointing to the organisational weaknesses of this instrument, the European Research Council (ERC) is considered a success story of European research policy. How did that come about? This research note takes a look inside the ERC’s administrative body, the ERC Executive Agency. Based on personal experience, the text provides information how tensions between scientific and administrative expectations towards the performance of this agency could be alleviated, and how a unique social fabric consisting of double compliance, complementary efficiency, and two-tier loyalty emerged. The note ends with some cautious remarks concerning the ERC’s future.
The Impact of the German 'DEAL' on Competition in the Academic Publishing Market

Justus Haucap,Nima Moshgbar,Wolfgang Benedikt Schmal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3815451

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:The German DEAL agreements between German universities and research institutions on the one side and Springer Nature and Wiley on the other side facilitate easy open access publishing for researchers located in Germany. We use a dataset of all publications in chemistry from 2016 to 2020 and apply a difference-in-differences approach to estimate the impact on eligible scientists’ choice of publication outlet. We find that even in the short period following the conclusion of these DEAL agreements, publication patterns in the field of chemistry have changed, as eligible researchers have increased their publications in Wiley and Springer Nature journals at the cost of other journals. From that two related competition concerns emerge: First, academic libraries may be, at least in the long run, left with fewer funds and incentives to subscribe to non-DEAL journals published by smaller publishers or to fund open access publications in these journals. Secondly, eligible authors may prefer to publish in journals included in the DEAL agreements, thereby giving DEAL journals a competitive advantage over non-DEAL journals in attracting good papers. Given the two-sided market nature of the academic journal market, these effects may both further spur the concentration process in this market.
The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds

Gerald Schweiger,Adrian Barnett,Peter van den Besselaar,Lutz Bornmann,Andreas De Block,John P.A. Ioannidis,Ulf Sandström,Stijn Conix

2024-03-26

Abstract:Research funding systems are not isolated systems - they are embedded in a larger scientific system with an enormous influence on the system. This paper aims to analyze the allocation of competitive research funding from different perspectives: How reliable are decision processes for funding? What are the economic costs of competitive funding? How does competition for funds affect doing risky research? How do competitive funding environments affect scientists themselves, and which ethical issues must be considered? We attempt to identify gaps in our knowledge of research funding systems; we propose recommendations for policymakers and funding agencies, including empirical experiments of decision processes and the collection of data on these processes. With our recommendations we hope to contribute to developing improved ways of organizing research funding.

General Economics
Daily briefing: Millions of online papers at risk of disappearing

Flora Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00664-x

IF: 64.8

2024-03-04

Nature

Abstract:A big chunk of the literature is missing from online archives, an anti-methane satellite will seek leaks and how to weigh a neutrino.

multidisciplinary sciences
Apply publication-charge waivers across hybrid journals, too

Daniel Keirs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00021-y

IF: 64.8

2024-01-09

Nature

Abstract:Letter to the Editor

multidisciplinary sciences
The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

Manuel Tarrazo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v8n2p6

2023-09-25

International Research in Higher Education

Abstract:This note originated as part of the author’s regular research publishing activity. The author’s and colleagues’ experiences suggested broadening the usual examination of potential outlets. What we encountered was not “more of the same” from previous searches for outlets but very significant fundamental changes in the academic/scholarly publishing landscape. We first review the standard research process in the context of academic tenure and promotions. The we proceed to identify and enumerate potential publishing outlets, which we further classify into groups reflecting these critical differences meaningful for academic authors and their supervisors: nature of the outlet (for profit, not for profit; commercial, academic, and professional), open versus restricted access, peer-reviewing, and nature of the final article depository. What we consider the usual way to go about publishing shows many disruptions that do not benefit authors, such as major (commercial) publishers favoring a certain type of article and engaging in massive desk-rejection practices as well as less powerful publishers either closing down or imposing restrictions (words, reviewers), with serious unintended consequences. The traditional scholarly publishing model of requiring a given number of articles every x years may have become unsustainable, as it is extremely expensive and does not favor disinterested research. On the plus side, we find increasing publishing opportunities for authors, but these alternative opportunities might imply decisions that do not fit the traditional evaluation approach and might require innovative agreements between faculty and their academic supervisors.
Waiving Article Processing Charges for Least Developed Countries. A Brick Stone of a Large-scale Open Access Transformation

Niels Taubert,Andre Bruns,Christopher Lenke,Graham Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.04180

2020-08-10

Digital Libraries

Abstract:This article investigates the question, if it is economically feasible for a large publishing house to waive article processing charges for the group of 47 so called least developed countries (LDC). As an example Springer-Nature is selected. The analysis is based on the Web of Science, OpenAPC and the Jisc collections Springer compact journal list. As a result, it estimates an average yearly publication output of 520 publications (or a share of 0,26% of the worldwide publication output in Springer-Nature journals) for the LDC country group. The loss of revenues for Springer-Nature would be 1,1 million $ if a waiver would be applied for all of these countries. Given that money is indispensable for development in the case of LDC (e.g. life expectancy, health, education), it is not only desirable but also possible in economic terms for a publisher like Springer-Nature to waive APCs for these countries without much loss in revenues.

German paper chase to end

New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals

The quest to fund research: playing research lotto

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

Chinese scientists say funding shake-up has made it harder to win grants

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

Academic publishing and collaboration between China and Germany in physics

An Overview of Academic Publishing and Collaboration Between China and Germany

Paper trail

German funders’ data sharing policies—A qualitative interview study

What steps to take when funding starts to run out

Final spending bills offer gloomy outlook for science

Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars

Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape

Funding Frontier Research: Mission Accomplished?

The Impact of the German 'DEAL' on Competition in the Academic Publishing Market

The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds

Daily briefing: Millions of online papers at risk of disappearing

Apply publication-charge waivers across hybrid journals, too

The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

Waiving Article Processing Charges for Least Developed Countries. A Brick Stone of a Large-scale Open Access Transformation