Dataset Information

Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Publons platform provides integrated information on researchers, peer reviewers, publications and certain author metrics. Central Asia is a potentially growing region in terms of young researchers.

Methods

Using the inbuilt Publons search, the top institutes of nine countries of Central Asia and neighbours were identified and data on their reviewers, number of publications, number of peer reviews completed were extracted. These were compared with demographics of the countries such as population, gross domestic product, number of physicians and proportion of population enrolled for higher education.

Results

Amongst the top 15 institutes in Central Asia, China has claim to 12 while Kazakhstan has two and Iran has one. The number of top peer reviewers, number of verified reviews and Web of Science indexed publications from these top institutes varied directly with the number of researchers each had. Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are not performing well on most of these while China seems to be an outlier on the upper edge of the graphs. There is good correlation between the number of researchers in the top institutes per country and both number of publications and number of completed reviews. The number of total publications per top ten institutes of each country has high correlation with various demographic parameters like total population (Spearman rho, ρ = 0.85), gross domestic product (ρ = 0.82), total number of physicians (ρ = 0.72), and number enrolled for higher education (ρ = 0.93).

Conclusion

There appears to be much disparity among the rankings, number of researchers, reviewers and published manuscripts across various countries in Central Asia. The gross heterogeneity of Central Asia needs to be minimized by nurturing and mentoring potentially upcoming researchers in publication, peer reviewing as well as in ethics involved.

SUBMITTER: Ahmed S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8167409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020-2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

Project description:Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.