#OpenScience

The Open Science movement, which promotes transparent, accessible, and reproducible research, has gained significant momentum in recent years. To fully appreciate its significance, we must examine its historical roots, evolution, and the societal shifts that have influenced its development.

Early Foundations: The Birth of Scientific Communication

The origins of the Open Science movement can be traced back to the 17th century with the advent of scientific journals. The establishment of journals like the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 marked the beginning of a formalized system for disseminating scientific knowledge. These publications were crucial in promoting the sharing of experimental results and ideas, fostering a collaborative scientific community.

The Enlightenment era further propelled the ideals of openness and transparency. Philosophers and scientists advocated for the free exchange of knowledge, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence and reason. This period laid the groundwork for the principles that underpin the modern Open Science movement.

The 20th Century: Institutionalization and the Rise of Closed Systems

The 20th century witnessed significant advancements in science and technology, accompanied by the institutionalization of research. Governments and private institutions increasingly funded scientific research, leading to the establishment of large research organizations and universities.

However, this period also saw the rise of proprietary research and closed systems. Intellectual property rights, patents, and commercialization of research outcomes often restricted access to scientific knowledge. The Cold War era further exacerbated this trend, with research being driven by national interests and security concerns, leading to the classification of significant scientific findings.

The Digital Revolution: Catalyzing Open Science

The late 20th and early 21st centuries brought about the digital revolution, fundamentally transforming how scientific knowledge is created and shared. The internet and digital technologies provided unprecedented opportunities for open access and collaboration. Key milestones include:

1. Open Access Journals: The launch of pioneering open access journals like PLOS ONE in 2006 challenged the traditional subscription-based model, making scientific articles freely accessible to the public.
2. Preprint Servers: Platforms like arXiv, established in 1991, allowed researchers to share preprints of their work, promoting rapid dissemination and feedback.
3. Open Data Initiatives: Efforts to make research data publicly available gained traction, exemplified by initiatives such as the Human Genome Project, which released genomic data openly.

Contemporary Developments: Institutional and Policy Support

In recent years, the Open Science movement has garnered substantial support from governments, funding agencies, and institutions. Policies mandating open access to publicly funded research have been implemented in various countries. The European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program, for example, emphasizes open access and open data as key components of scientific research.

Additionally, the emergence of open-source tools and platforms has facilitated collaborative research. Projects like the Open Science Framework (OSF) provide infrastructure for sharing data, code, and research workflows, enhancing reproducibility and transparency.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite its progress, the Open Science movement faces several challenges. Concerns about data privacy, intellectual property rights, and the quality of open-access publications persist. Moreover, the transition to open practices requires cultural shifts within the scientific community, incentivizing researchers to prioritize openness over traditional metrics of success.

The future of Open Science lies in addressing these challenges while continuing to build on the principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaboration. Innovations in blockchain technology, for instance, hold potential for ensuring data integrity and provenance. Furthermore, fostering international cooperation and aligning policies across borders will be crucial in realizing the global potential of Open Science.

Future is Open Science

Understanding the Open Science movement through the lens of history reveals a trajectory rooted in the early ideals of knowledge sharing and transparency. From the establishment of scientific journals in the 17th century to the digital revolution and contemporary policy support, the journey of Open Science reflects a dynamic interplay between societal needs, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. As we move forward, embracing the principles of Open Science will be essential in addressing the complex challenges of our time and advancing the collective progress of humanity.

Photo via APA

Whether you’re drafting a research article or a grant proposal, identifying areas for improvement can be challenging. Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science at LSE, has developed seven strategies to help refine problematic articles or chapters. These tactics are designed to elevate your work from merely adequate to exceptional.

1. Focus on One Thing

Overcomplicating your writing by attempting to cover too much ground can dilute your message and exceed length limits, making it difficult for reviewers to follow your argument. Instead, focus on doing one thing well within clearly defined boundaries. This approach not only clarifies your intent but also ensures that your work remains substantive without fragmenting it across multiple articles.

2. Simplify the Structure

Social science articles should ideally be 8,000 words or less, with chapters around 10,000 words. Use sub-headings every 2,000 words to create a predictable rhythm and structure. Avoid multi-tiered hierarchies of sub-headings, as these can overwhelm readers and obscure your main points. Each section heading should be substantive, guiding the reader through your narrative logically and clearly.

3. Say It Once, Say It Right

Repetition can undermine a reader’s confidence in your writing. Avoid previewing, stating, restating, and summarizing the same point. Instead, present each point clearly and concisely the first time. This approach ensures your argument is direct and engaging without unnecessary repetition.

4. Re-Plan Your Paragraphs

Revisiting and reorganizing your paragraphs can offer fresh insights into your existing draft. Techniques like “reverse outlining,” where you extract a detailed structure from your finished text, can help you see your work from a new perspective. This method can reveal alternative sequences and improve the overall flow of your writing.

5. Clarify the Motivation

Readers need to understand why your research matters. Clearly articulate the significance of your study, why it was conducted, and its broader implications. If you’re struggling to write an effective conclusion, it might indicate that your motivation isn’t clear enough. A compelling introduction and a strong, forward-looking start to each chapter can help maintain reader interest.

6. Strengthen Argument Tokens

Every paragraph in your research should be supported by “tokens” such as citations, quotations, empirical evidence, or data. Ensure these elements are robust and convincing. Updating and expanding your literature search just before submission can provide a more comprehensive and current foundation for your arguments.

7. Enhance Data and Exhibits

Effective data presentation is crucial. Design exhibits that follow good design principles and ensure that each chart, table, or diagram is fully labeled and relevant to your readers. The data should be presented in a way that underscores its importance and applicability.

By employing these strategies, you can transform a lackluster draft into a compelling and persuasive piece of academic writing. For more detailed advice, refer to Patrick Dunleavy’s book, “Authoring a PhD” (Palgrave, 2003), particularly Chapter 5 on “Writing clearly” and Chapter 6 on “Developing as a Writer.” Additional insights can be found on Rachael Cayley’s blog, “Explorations of Style,” and Thomas Basboll’s blog, “Research as a Second Language.”

About the Author: Patrick Dunleavy is a professor of political science at LSE and Chair of the LSE Public Policy Group. He is the author of “Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral dissertation or thesis” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

Image credit: Nic McPhee (Flickr, CC BY-SA)

Original article via Impact of Social Science blog

Written by
Giulia Rizzo
Chair of the MCAA France Chapter
Postdoctoral researcher at INSERM

Science diplomacy involves using scientific collaborations among nations to tackle common issues and foster constructive international partnerships. In this article, three scientific attachés share their experiences in this field.

According to the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, science diplomacy encompasses three main activities: “science in diplomacy,” which involves providing scientific advice to support foreign policy objectives; “diplomacy for science,” which facilitates international scientific cooperation; and “science for diplomacy,” which aims to enhance international relations through scientific collaboration.

To gain a deeper understanding of science diplomacy, I interviewed three Italian scientific diplomats.

Who are Scientific Attachés?

A scientific attaché, also known as a science or technical attaché, is a member of a diplomatic mission whose role is managed by their country’s ministry of foreign affairs. The scientific attachés I interviewed are Cristina Biino from the International Organization in Geneva, overseeing Italian multilateral projects at the UN; Marco Borra from the Italian Embassy in Paris, handling bilateral projects between France and Italy; and Costanza Conti from the Italian Embassy in Ottawa, managing bilateral projects between Canada and Italy.

According to the interviewees, scientific attachés have five primary functions:

1. Advising their country’s ambassador on scientific and technical matters.
2. Reporting on scientific and technological events.
3. Representing and supporting their country in scientific, political, and technical matters within foreign scientific and technical academies, industries, or intergovernmental organizations.
4. Organizing events to disseminate specific scientific topics.
5. Supporting their home country’s research network in the host country.

The role does not require specific training or a Master’s degree. In Italy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues an official call for candidates, interviewing them based on their background, career development, and language proficiency. Applicants must have Italian citizenship and be permanently employed at an Italian public institution. The contract for a scientific attaché typically lasts two years, with the possibility of renewal up to eight years.

The Pros and Cons of Being a Scientific Attaché

The interviewees highlighted several positives of being a scientific attaché, such as the dynamic and challenging nature of the job, the opportunity to influence and foster international cooperation, and working within a multicultural environment. They also noted the variety of potential career paths available after their diplomatic tenure.

However, the short duration of contract terms poses challenges for long-term planning and initiatives. Relocating for the position also presents initial difficulties, particularly in finding suitable housing and schools for their children, due to differences in educational systems and associated costs.

Advice for Aspiring Scientific Attachés

For those interested in becoming scientific diplomats, Cristina Biino recommends expanding their interests to include diverse subjects like climate change and artificial intelligence. Marco Borra suggests getting involved in international and multicultural associations and events to facilitate cooperation. Costanza Conti emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships, as diplomacy relies heavily on building strong human connections.

As science continues to address global challenges, the role of scientific diplomats is crucial in building bridges, fostering understanding, and advancing collective goals on the world stage. Science diplomacy serves as a powerful tool for creating nontraditional alliances and collaboratively tackling global issues.

Original article by Giulia Rizzo.

Dear members/network,

European Commission is conducting a study exploring the role of copyright in facilitating access to digital collections of public interest institutions (PIIs), such as libraries, archives, museums, as well as educational establishments and research organisations specifically for distance education and research purposes.

The main objective of this study is to understand how copyright rules impact access to various content (books, journals, films, videos, visual works, music, databases, etc.) for education and research, especially in digital contexts.

The study is carried out at the request of European Commission by Visionary Analytics together with research partners Ecorys, KEA, and OK Consulting. Please find the support letter from the European Commission here.

A survey within the study is currently ongoing. The survey has two target groups potentially relevant to you or your network:

• Cultural heritage institutions (e.g. library, museum, archive), educational institutions (e.g. school, university), and research institutions (e.g. think-tank, research institute)
• Educators (school teachers, university lecturers), students (general, vocational, higher education), scientific researchers, or patrons of a library, museum or archive

This is a unique opportunity to share your experiences, which will directly inform policy-making and thus will be very valuable.

We encourage you to participate in the survey and disseminate it further to your network and community. If you have already received a link to the survey, please use the one you received to complete the survey if you are in the target group, or share it with your members if you are an association representing the target group. If you have not received a link, please use the below links:

• If you want to share your perspectives on behalf of a cultural heritage institution (e.g. library, museum, archive), educational institution (e.g. school, university), or research institution (e.g. think-tank, research institute), please use this link: survey
• If you want to share your perspectives as an individual – teacher, educator, lecturer, student, researcher, or patron of a library, museum or archive – please use this link: survey

We kindly ask to fill in the survey until the 15/07/2024.

If you need to pause survey and continue later, you should press “Save and continue” in the upper right corner and provide your email. The link to the survey will be sent to your email and after opening the you will be directed to the point where you paused the survey. Your progress is saved once you proceed to the next survey page.

If you have any questions regarding the survey or the study, please reach out to the study team via copyright@visionarysurveys.lt

Thank you!

Photo via NICK ARTSRUNI 

A Proposal from cOAlition S

Introduction

New scientific discoveries are built on the foundation of established results from previous research. For this chain of knowledge to function optimally, all research results must be openly accessible to the scientific community. As Marc Schiltz stated in “Why Plan S,” the global push towards full and immediate Open Access (OA) has become an unstoppable trend over the past five years. However, academic publishing practices have lagged behind, failing to keep pace with the rapid advancements in the way science is performed, disseminated, and utilized. This growing disconnect jeopardizes the goal of universal OA for research outputs.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the necessity for faster, more efficient publishing models. Traditional publishing systems were too slow to disseminate critical and urgently needed information about SARS-CoV2. In response, scholars worldwide have adopted new practices to improve the dissemination and peer review of research findings, such as sharing articles before peer review and participating in open peer review processes. Innovative models like “diamond” publishing, which provide scholar-led services free to authors and readers, have been championed by research institutions, particularly in Latin America. These developments demand that funders and other stakeholders, including university libraries, rethink how best to support the dissemination of research responsibly, equitably, and sustainably.

In this document, cOAlition S proposes a vision and set of principles for a future scholarly communication system. This system aims to align with the evolving needs of the research community, promote open science, and address the challenges of the current publishing models. A consultative process will be undertaken to gather input from the research community, with a revised proposal to be considered by cOAlition S funders in June 2024.

The Dominant Publishing Models Are Highly Inequitable

Most academic journals sustain their operations through subscriptions, article processing charges (APCs), or both, creating significant barriers for researchers. Subscription paywalls hinder access to relevant research findings, while APCs can prevent researchers from publishing their work. While acknowledging that publishing incurs costs, cOAlition S believes all researchers should be able to publish their work as Open Access without facing author charges.

Key Challenges in the Current Scholarly Communication Ecosystem

1. Delayed Sharing of Research Outputs: The pre-publication peer review model causes significant publication delays, sometimes taking longer than traditional print and postal distribution. In the digital age, a 12-month delay in releasing new knowledge is as detrimental as the previously common 12-month open access publication embargo.
2. Underutilized Peer Review Potential: Peer review, while essential for quality control, is often confidential, hiding the efforts and insights of reviewers. Repetitive and confidential reviewing processes waste earlier peer review reports’ insights and undermine the quality control and accountability of authors, reviewers, and editors.
3. Editorial Gatekeeping and Career Incentives: The rejection-resubmission cycle, coupled with career incentives linked to editorial gatekeeping, burdens scientists, particularly early career researchers. This cycle threatens the well-being and persistence of the next generation of scientists in academic research.

Why Scholarly Communication Needs to Change

The problems with the current scholarly communication ecosystem can be distilled into four key challenges. cOAlition S proposes a scholar-led communication ecosystem to address these issues. This ecosystem empowers scholars to share their research outputs and participate in new quality control mechanisms, ensuring rapid and transparent dissemination of high-quality scientific knowledge.

Scope

This document focuses on scholarly communications related to research articles and associated content elements, such as peer review reports, author responses, and editorial decisions. While other research outputs like monographs are important, they are beyond the current scope. Open Science, as defined by the UNESCO Recommendation, covers all disciplines.

Vision

cOAlition S envisions a community-based scholarly communication system that empowers scholars to share their research outputs and participate in quality control mechanisms and evaluation standards. This approach ensures the rapid and transparent dissemination of high-quality scientific knowledge.

Principles

The following principles support this vision:

1. Authors Control Dissemination: Authors, not third-party suppliers, should decide when and where to publish their work, including pre- and post-peer review versions and associated peer review reports.
2. Immediate and Open Sharing: Researchers should share their outputs openly, allowing others to adapt, reuse, and build upon these results at no cost to themselves.
3. Community-Based Quality Control: Academic communities should set and monitor quality standards through open quality control processes, publishing peer review reports to enable transparency and trust.
4. Inclusive Research Assessment: All scholarly contributions should be considered in research assessment, with their value determined by relevant research communities.
5. Support for Scholar-Led Publishing: Stakeholders, including funders and institutions, should support the development and adoption of community-based publishing, respecting disciplinary differences and epistemic traditions.

Opportunities to Engage

A scholar-led communication system is not a new concept but builds on existing good practices. Researchers, service providers, funders, and institutions must work together to put scholarship at the center of scholarly communication. Researchers will need to take an active role in disseminating their outputs and contributing to open peer review. Service providers must tailor their services to support scholarly contributions. Funders and institutions should incentivize and reward practices aligned with these principles and provide financial support for infrastructure and services.

Mission

cOAlition S aims to facilitate the transition to an open, scholar-led communication ecosystem in partnership with the research community, through funding requirements and research assessment processes.

Conclusion

The Plan S initiative has enabled unprecedented levels of Open Access research. However, current models, such as Read and Publish agreements and APCs, remain inequitable. Pre-publication peer review delays sharing, and inaccessible peer review reports hinder responsible research assessment. The proposed scholar-led communication ecosystem addresses these issues, building on existing good practices and aligning with recent conclusions from the Council of the European Union and UNESCO.

Consultation

The consultation process, running from November 2023 to April 2024, aims to refine the proposal based on input from the research community. Details on how to contribute can be found at: cOAlition S Consultation.

Example of a Scholar-Led Ecosystem: Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) Model

The PRC model distinguishes three core functions of scholarly communication: publication, peer review, and curation. This model ensures the full and immediate sharing of scholarly outputs, with authors deciding when to publish unreviewed publications, exposing their work for formal review, and having curation editors select peer-reviewed papers for publication.

By proposing a transition to a scholar-led communication system, cOAlition S seeks to create a more equitable, efficient, and transparent scholarly communication ecosystem, fostering the rapid dissemination of high-quality scientific knowledge.

Original Article By Dr. Heidi Seibold

The academic publishing system is undeniably flawed, a sentiment shared by many in the scholarly community. However, aspiring academics striving for a successful career while adhering to the principles of openness can still navigate this landscape effectively. Here’s a pragmatic approach to achieving this balance.

Understanding the Challenge

It’s natural to fear that not publishing in established journals could hinder your career progression. The pressure to publish in recognized journals is immense, as these are often deemed valuable by peers and employers. Nevertheless, embracing Open Science doesn’t have to be daunting. Start with manageable steps and gradually incorporate more open practices into your workflow.

Options for Open Access Publishing

Publish a Preprint

One of the simplest ways to begin your Open Science journey is by publishing a preprint. Most journals permit preprint submissions. Uploading your paper to a preprint server such as arXiv or OSF preprints before or alongside journal submission ensures early dissemination of your work. Resources like ASAPbio’s searchable list of preprint servers can help you find the right platform for your field.

To verify if your target journal allows preprints, use tools like Sherpa Romeo. For example, if you aim to publish in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Sherpa Romeo confirms that preprints are permitted. Here’s the workflow:

1. Identify your target journal.
2. Check preprint policies on Sherpa Romeo.
3. Prepare your paper for submission.
4. Upload to a preprint server and submit to the journal.

Publish in an Established Open Access Journal

Many reputable open access journals exist across various fields. Publishing in these journals ensures that your work is freely accessible. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a useful resource to find such journals by field.

Be mindful of article processing charges (APCs), which can be steep, sometimes exceeding 4000 Euros. However, many institutions and funders offer support for APCs. Consult your library—they often have information on available funding.

For instance, journals like the Journal of Statistical Software are free for both authors and readers, providing an excellent publishing option without financial burden.

Utilize Institutional Open Access Agreements

Increasingly, institutions and regions are forming agreements with publishers, allowing researchers to publish and access works without additional cost. While some Open Access advocates critique these agreements, they can be beneficial for individual researchers. Examples include the German DEAL and agreements at TU Munich.

Consult your library to discover such agreements and understand how they can support your open access publishing efforts.

What to Avoid: Hybrid Journals

Hybrid journals charge fees to make individual articles open access while the rest of the journal remains closed. Paying these fees is generally discouraged as it funnels more money into an already expensive system. Instead, if you choose to publish in a hybrid journal, opt to publish a preprint without paying the open access fee.

Recognizing Predatory Journals

A common misconception is that open access journals are often predatory, prioritizing profit over scientific integrity. However, most open access journals maintain high standards. Utilize tools like the Think. Check. Submit. checklist to identify reputable journals and dispel the myth that all open access journals are predatory.

Embracing Openness in Your Academic Journey

Balancing a commitment to Open Science with the demands of an academic career is achievable through strategic choices. By starting with preprints, considering established open access journals, and leveraging institutional agreements, researchers can maintain openness without compromising their career aspirations. Remember, the belief that all open access journals are predatory is a myth—responsible selection and due diligence are key to successful and ethical publishing.

For a deeper dive into alternatives like Peer Community In (PCI), which uses preprints to bypass traditional publishing systems, explore my previous posts on the topic.

Embrace openness and take these pragmatic steps to advance your career while staying true to your values.

Dr. Heidi Seibold is an advocate for Open Science, sharing insights and strategies for researchers navigating the evolving landscape of academic publishing.

Original article can be found here.

The UNESCO Multisectoral Regional Office in Rabat organises a regional symposium titled Democratisingg Science: Implementation Pathways of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science in the Arab Region.” This significant event will take place on November 28 and 29, 2024, at Mohammed V University in Rabat.

The symposium is being organised in partnership with the World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW), the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), and UNESCO field offices in the Arab region. It aims to foster dialogue and collaboration among decision-makers, scientists, and researchers from across the region.

Participants will explore strategies and pathways for implementing the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, with a focus on enhancing accessibility, inclusivity, and innovation within the scientific community. The symposium will feature a range of discussions, workshops, and keynote presentations designed to promote the democratisation of science.

Interested individuals are invited to register for either online or in-person participation through the following link: Event Registration. The detailed agenda and programme of work will be made available in due course via the provided registration link.

This symposium represents a unique opportunity to contribute to the advancement of open science in the Arab region, ensuring that scientific knowledge and innovation are accessible to all.

Friday 28th of June, 12.00-13.00 pm CET on Zoom

The prevalence of mental health symptoms within the academic community has become a growing concern. Both early career researchers and senior academics face significant challenges, with notable incidences of depression, anxiety, and burnout. This trend raises alarms for both the research community and policymakers, highlighting the urgent need for effective strategies to address mental health issues within academia.

One potential solution lies in fostering support through the academic community itself. By leveraging the power of peer networks and mentorship, academics can find valuable support systems to navigate the mental health challenges associated with their demanding careers.

To explore this approach, the fourth webinar in a series on mental health will be held on June 28, from 12:00 to 13:00 CET. This webinar will feature a panel of three distinguished members of the Young Academy of Europe (YAE) who will delve into the critical role of mentorship in academia. Both mentors and mentees can benefit from these relationships, as they provide a platform to voice and work through mental health issues.

The panelists for this event include Mar Rus-Calafell, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, and Scott Bremer, who will share their diverse experiences with mentoring. The discussion will be moderated by Viktorija Vaštakaitė-Kairienė, the YAE Activities Chair. Attendees are encouraged to contribute their questions and experiences to enrich the conversation.

This mental health webinar series will conclude with a workshop focused on scientific leadership, with a particular emphasis on mental health. This workshop will take place at the YAE Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Strasbourg on August 26th and 27th. Interested individuals are encouraged to register and participate in this culminating event.

Through initiatives like these, the academic community can come together to address mental health challenges, creating a supportive environment that fosters well-being and resilience.

Register here.

Photo via Alivio

In 2020, Dutch universities, university medical centres, research institutes, and research funders initiated the Recognition & Rewards programme. This initiative seeks to create a balanced approach to recognizing and rewarding academic work, ensuring that diverse talents and contributions across research, teaching, impact, leadership, and patient care are valued. The programme aims to address the one-sided focus on quantitative individual research performance, which has often led to the neglect of other critical academic activities.

Key Developments and Objectives

To promote this broader perspective, the Universities of the Netherlands (UNL), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU), the Network of Ideologically-based Universities (NLU), the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Dutch Research Council (NWO), and ZonMw collaborated on a position paper titled Room for Everyone’s Talent: Towards a New Balance in the Recognition and Reward of Academics. This paper laid out ambitious goals for a significant shift in how academic achievements are recognized and rewarded, emphasizing the need for a profound cultural change.

To monitor the progress towards these goals, the ‘Recognition & Rewards Plan 2022–2026’ introduced a culture barometer. This tool aims to:

1. Assess the extent to which academics recognize, experience, and share the ambitions of the Recognition & Rewards programme within their institutions.
2. Provide insights into the progress of the envisaged cultural change throughout the programme’s duration.

First Culture Barometer Survey

The first culture barometer was conducted in early 2024 by Berenschot, with a follow-up planned for 2026. The survey was meticulously prepared with input from project leaders, HR directors, and questionnaire experts. It was administered in both Dutch and English to ensure accessibility for all academic staff across 26 participating institutions.

Survey Participation and Response

The survey targeted all academic staff, totaling 65,142 individuals. The response rate varied by institution, ranging from 4% to 52%, with an overall response rate of 12.1%. This participation level provided sufficient data to analyze variations across different job categories and subject areas, though it highlighted some disparities in representation, such as the underrepresentation of PhD candidates and younger academics.

Findings and Interpretation

The survey results offer valuable insights into the current state of the Recognition & Rewards programme. Key findings include:

• Familiarity with the Programme: Respondents who were already familiar with the programme were more likely to complete the questionnaire.
• Perceived Recognition and Rewards: Respondents who completed the survey generally felt less recognized and rewarded in their work.
• Demographic Representation: The gender distribution in responses was balanced. However, younger academics and PhD candidates were underrepresented, while professors and associate professors were overrepresented.
• Subject Area Representation: Academics in Healthcare were the largest group but were underrepresented in responses, while Natural and Life Sciences, and Behavioural and Social Sciences had slightly higher representation.

Challenges and Biases

The survey faced potential selection biases. Institutions that heavily promoted the survey and sent reminders saw higher response rates. Additionally, respondents who felt less recognized and rewarded were more likely to participate, which might skew perceptions of the programme’s effectiveness.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This report provides a snapshot of the Recognition & Rewards programme’s current state, based on the opinions of academic staff. While it highlights significant areas for improvement and adjustment, it also underscores the importance of continued monitoring and adaptation. The follow-up survey in 2026 will further illuminate the programme’s impact and guide future efforts to create a more inclusive and balanced academic recognition and rewards system.

More information and insights: RECOGNITION & REWARDS