Itinerant shelves: a glimpse of informal book trade in Real de Chiapa (New Spain, XVII)

In 1636, captain Cristóbal De Velasco presented to a notary an inventory of books he had or had owned following an edict of the Inquisition. In the severely damaged document, De Velasco recounted the books he had sold to Alonso Larios, the brother superior of the convent of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy in Real de Chiapa (Captaincy General of Guatemala). These volumes had been in the possession of Diego Sánchez de Pinos, an Inquisition commissioner who had named De Velasco as executor. This document presents us with a glimpse of the informal book trade that took place in New Spain. Especially of interest is that this exchange took place in the periphery of the viceroyalty, attesting to the books that men of the Church deemed necessary for their work and the networks to which they belonged.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

The Three-Step Workflow: A Pragmatic Approach to Allocating Academic Hospitals’ Affiliations for Bibliometric Purposes

This paper presents a method for classifying the varying degrees of interdependency between academic hospitals and universities in the context of the Leiden Ranking. A key question for ranking universities is whether or not to allocate the publication output of affiliated hospitals to universities.Hospital nomenclatures vary worldwide to denote some form of collaboration with a university: academic hospitals, teaching hospitals, university hospitals, and academic medical centres do not correspond to universally standard definitions. Thus, rather than seeking a normative definition of academic hospitals, we are proposing a workflow that aligns the university-hospital relationship with one of three general models: full integration of the hospital and the medical faculty into a single organization; health science centres in which hospitals and medical faculty remain separate entities albeit within the same governance structure; and structures in which universities and hospitals are separate entities which collaborate with one another. This classification system provides a standard by which we can allocate publications which note affiliations with academic hospitals.Our three-step workflow effectively translates the three above-mentioned models into two types of instrumental relationships for the assignation of publications: “associate” and “component”. When a hospital and a medical faculty are fully integrated or when a hospital is part of a health science centre, the relationship is classified as component. When a hospital follows the model of collaboration and support, the relationship is classified as associate. The compilation of data following these standards allows for a more uniform comparison between worldwide educational and research systems.Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)313082Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Handling publishing misconduct: tools used by publishing houses and editors

Work Package III gathers indicators of the extent of misconduct and analyses how institutions respond to misconduct or deviance in science. Deliverable 3.5 focuses on the protocols and tools used by scholarly and scientific publishers to guard scientific integrity. Aside from an overview of the practices and aids in place at various publishing houses, the report contains a summary of the experiences collected through qualitative interviews with several editors and publishers, as well as an account of the tools themselves.Horizon 2020(H2020)EC Grant: 665926Modern and Contemporary StudiesMerit, Expertise and Measuremen

Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: a scoping review

Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and gray literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies.Horizon 2020(H2020)824481Medieval and Early Modern Studie

Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?

The widespread problems with scientific fraud, questionable research practices, and the reliability of scientific results have led to an increased focus on research integrity (RI). International organisations and networks have been established, declarations have been issued, and codes of conducts have been formed. The abstract principles of these documents are now also being translated into concrete topic areas that Research Performing organisations (RPOs) and Research Funding organisations (RFOs) should focus on. However, so far, we know very little about disciplinary differences in the need for RI support from RPOs and RFOs. The paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It reports on a comprehensive focus group study with 30 focus group interviews carried out in eight different countries across Europe focusing on the following research question: “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with six policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of the study can be used in RPOs and RFOs.Modern and Contemporary Studie

Education and training policies for research integrity: insights from a focus group study

Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts.Horizon 2020(H2020)824481Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Co-limitation towards lower latitudes shapes global forest diversity gradients

The latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG) is one of the most recognized global patterns of species richness exhibited across a wide range of taxa. Numerous hypotheses have been proposed in the past two centuries to explain LDG, but rigorous tests of the drivers of LDGs have been limited by a lack of high-quality global species richness data. Here we produce a high-resolution (0.025° × 0.025°) map of local tree species richness using a global forest inventory database with individual tree information and local biophysical characteristics from ~1.3 million sample plots. We then quantify drivers of local tree species richness patterns across latitudes. Generally, annual mean temperature was a dominant predictor of tree species richness, which is most consistent with the metabolic theory of biodiversity (MTB). However, MTB underestimated LDG in the tropics, where high species richness was also moderated by topographic, soil and anthropogenic factors operating at local scales. Given that local landscape variables operate synergistically with bioclimatic factors in shaping the global LDG pattern, we suggest that MTB be extended to account for co-limitation by subordinate drivers

Navigating the science system: research integrity and academic survival strategies

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientifc behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information defcit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we defne epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientifc inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientifc work. Our core argument—developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across diferent felds and European countries—is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to ofer a more fne-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.Horizon 2020(H2020)Grant Agreement Νo 824481Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Policy brief for scientific and scholarly publishers

This policy brief is based on empirical work undertaken as part of the Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research (PRINTEGER) project which focuses on research integrity and scientific misconduct. This document is meant for academic publishers and editors. Therefore, we focus on breaches of integrity that affect scientific publishing, either before, during, or after publication of scientific and scholarly results. Horizon 2020(H2020)No. 665926Merit, Expertise and Measuremen