Dataset Information

Imagining the "open" university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education.

ABSTRACT: Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship and some of the tensions created by incompatibilities between institutional policies and personal practice. To address this, I propose several concrete actions universities could take to support open scholarship and outline ways in which such initiatives could benefit the public as well as institutions. Importantly, I do not think most of these actions would require new funding but rather a redistribution of existing funds and a rewriting of internal policies to better align with university missions of knowledge dissemination and societal impact.

SUBMITTER: McKiernan EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5655613 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Imagining the "open" university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education.

McKiernan Erin C EC

PLoS biology 20171024 10

Open scholarship, such as the sharing of articles, code, data, and educational resources, has the potential to improve university research and education as well as increase the impact universities can have beyond their own walls. To support this perspective, I present evidence from case studies, published literature, and personal experiences as a practicing open scholar. I describe some of the challenges inherent to practicing open scholarship and some of the tensions created by incompatibilitie ...[more]

PMID: 29065148

Similar Datasets

Project description:Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement.A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted.A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems.No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and "luxury" indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance.

Project description:Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.ObjectivesWe sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of education scholarship and facilitators and barriers to producing high-quality education scholarship.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory-derived approach. Participants were solicited directly, and semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed by three study investigators using a coding matrix. Discrepancies in coding were resolved via in depth discussion.ResultsWe interviewed seven EM chairs from academic departments throughout North America (six in geographically diverse regions of the United States and one in western Canada). Chairs described education scholarship as lacking clearly defined and measurable outcomes, as well as methodologic rigor. They identified that education faculty within their departments need training and incentives to pursue scholarly work in a system that primarily expects teaching from educators. Chairs acknowledged a lack of access to education research expertise and mentorship within their own departments, but identified potential resources within their local medical schools and universities. They also voiced willingness to support career development opportunities and scholarly work among faculty seeking to perform education research.ConclusionsAcademic EM chairs endorse a need for methodologic training, mentorship, and access to expertise specific to education scholarship. While such resources are often rare within academic EM departments, they may exist within local universities and schools of medicine. Academic EM chairs described themselves as willing and able to support faculty who wish to pursue this type of work.

Project description:Carbon ion radiotherapy holds great promise for cancer therapy. Clinical data show that carbon ion radiotherapy is an effective treatment for tumors that are resistant to X-ray radiotherapy. Since 1994 in Japan, the National Institute of Radiological Sciences has been heading the development of carbon ion radiotherapy using the Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator in Chiba. The Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center (GHMC) was established in the year 2006 as a proof-of-principle institute for carbon ion radiotherapy with a view to facilitating the worldwide spread of compact accelerator systems. Along with the management of more than 1900 cancer patients to date, GHMC engages in translational research to improve the treatment efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy. Research aimed at guiding patient selection is of utmost importance for making the most of carbon ion radiotherapy, which is an extremely limited medical resource. Intratumoral oxygen levels, radiation-induced cellular apoptosis, the capacity to repair DNA double-strand breaks, and the mutational status of tumor protein p53 and epidermal growth factor receptor genes are all associated with X-ray sensitivity. Assays for these factors are useful in the identification of X-ray-resistant tumors for which carbon ion radiotherapy would be beneficial. Research aimed at optimizing treatments based on carbon ion radiotherapy is also important. This includes assessment of dose fractionation, normal tissue toxicity, tumor cell motility, and bystander effects. Furthermore, the efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy will likely be enhanced by research into combined treatment with other modalities such as chemotherapy. Several clinically available chemotherapeutic drugs (carboplatin, paclitaxel, and etoposide) and drugs at the developmental stage (Wee-1 and heat shock protein 90 inhibitors) show a sensitizing effect on tumor cells treated with carbon ions. Additionally, the efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy can be improved by combining it with cancer immunotherapy. Clinical validation of preclinical findings is necessary to further improve the treatment efficacy of carbon ion radiotherapy.

Dataset Information

Imagining the "open" university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education.

Publications

Imagining the "open" university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets