RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation compie cinque anni

Non era scontato, ma con il fascicolo 2017, RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation ha compiuto cinque anni. Il 2017 è stato un anno importante per RT perché abbiamo potuto finalmente esibire il seal DOAJ. Il sigillo arancione viene attribuito da DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) alle riviste “that achieve a high level of openness, adhere to Best Practice and high publishing standards”. E perché RT è stata indicizzata in ERIH (European Reference Index for The Humanities and Social Sciences), la lista di riviste scientifiche delle scienze umane e sociali compilata dalla European Science Foundation. Va da sé che ad una anno dalla richiesta ad ANVUR di essere inseriti nelle liste delle riviste scientifiche, non abbiamo ricevuto nessuna risposta. Fondare una nuova rivista in una paese in cui una agenzia di valutazione governativa decide cosa è scientifico e cosa no, e che valuta tutti gli articoli solo sulla base del contenitore in cui sono inclusi, è opera assai ardua. Ed infatti in questi cinque anni abbiamo ricevuto un numero di contributi di autori italiani che si contano sulle dita di un paio di mani. Perché pubblicare su RT non vale nulla a fini di carriera o premiali. Malgrado questo, con fatica, abbiamo pubblicato dignitosi fascicoli annuali. Quello del 2017 contiene articoli di Mohammad Sadabi et al., Alberto Baccini e Giuseppe De Nicolao, Klaas van Dijk, Mike Neary and Joss Winn, Andrea Stella. Per il 2018 è in programma un numero monografico dedicato a Research Policy: insights from social epistemology, curato da Eugenio Petrovich e Marco Viola.

Non era scontato, ma ormai RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation ha compiuto cinque anni.

L’acronimo RT sta per Roars Transaction, perché RT nasce dall’esperienza di questo blog. I lettori interessati possono trovare una breve ricostruzione e dati qua.  Il 2017 è stato un anno importante per RT per due ragioni:

• perché abbiamo potuto finalmente esibire il seal DOAJ. Il sigillo arancione viene attribuito da DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) alle riviste “that achieve a high level of openness, adhere to Best Practice and high publishing standards”

• RT è stata indicizzata in ERIH (European Reference Index for The Humanities and Social Sciences), la lista di riviste scientifiche delle scienze umane e sociali compilata dalla European Science Foundation.

Questo signfica che RT ha rispettato i seguenti requisiti:

Va da sé, che ad oggi, ad una anno dalla richiesta ad ANVUR che RT sia inserita nelle liste delle riviste scientifiche, non abbiamo ricevuto nessuna risposta.

Fondare una nuova rivista in una paese in cui una agenzia di valutazione governativa decide cosa è scientifico e cosa no, e che valuta tutti gli articoli solo sulla base del contenitore in cui sono inclusi, è opera assai ardua. Ed infatti in questi cinque anni abbiamo ricevuto contributo di autori italiani che si contano sulle dita di un paio di mani. Perché pubblicare su RT non vale nulla a fini di carriera o premiali.

Malgrado questo siamo riusciti con fatica, grazie ad articoli sottoposti da studiosi in netta prevalenza stranieri, a pubblicare dignitosi fascicoli annuali.

Quello del 2017 si è chiuso con un articolo di Mike Neary e Joss Winn (Univ. Of Lincoln, UK) dedicato alla presentazione dell’esperienza del Social Science Centre di Lincoln, una esperienza di università strutturata in forma cooperativa che offre corsi gratuiti.

• Mike Neary, Joss Winn,  “The Social Science Centre, Lincoln: the theory and practice of a radical idea”
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/9219

Abstract. The Social Science Centre, Lincoln (SSC), is a co-operative organising free higher education in the city of Lincoln, England. It was formed in 2011 by a group of academics and students in response to the massive rise in student fees, from £3000 to £9000, along with other other government policies that saw the increasing neo-liberalisation of English universities. In this essay we chart the history of the SSC and what it has been like to be a member of this co-operative; but we also want to express another aspect of the centre which we have not written about: the existence of the SSC as an intellectual idea and how the idea has spread and been developed through written publications by members of the centre and by research on the centre by other non-members: students, academics and journalists. At the end of the essay we will show the most up to date manifestation of the idea, the plans to create a co-operative university with degree awarding powers where those involved, students and academics, can make a living as part of an independent enterprise ran and owned by its members for their benefit and the benefit of their community and society.

Gli altri articoli dell’anno:

• Alberto Baccini and Giuseppe De Nicolao, “Errors and secret data in the Italian research assessment exercise. A comment to a reply”, https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/8872

Abstract. Italy adopted a performance-based system for funding universities that is centered on the results of a national research assessment exercise, realized by a governmental agency (ANVUR). ANVUR evaluated papers by using “a dual system of evaluation”, that is by informed peer review or by bibliometrics. In view of validating that system, ANVUR performed an experiment for estimating the agreement between informed review and bibliometrics. Ancaiani et al. (2015) presents the main results of the experiment. Alberto Baccini and De Nicolao (2017) documented in a letter, among other critical issues, that the statistical analysis was not realized on a random sample of articles. A reply to the letter has been published by Research Evaluation (Benedetto et al. 2017). This note highlights that in the reply there are (1) errors in data, (2) problems with “representativeness” of the sample, (3) unverifiable claims about weights used for calculating kappas, (4) undisclosed averaging procedures; (5) a statement about “same protocol in all areas” contradicted by official reports. Last but not least: the data used by the authors continue to be undisclosed. A general warning concludes: many recently published papers use data originating from Italian research assessment exercise. These data are not accessible to the scientific community and consequently these papers are not reproducible. They can be hardly considered as containing sound evidence at least until authors or ANVUR disclose the data necessary for replication.

• Klaas van Dijk, “Is partial behaviour a plausible explanation for the unavailability of the ICMJE disclosure form of an author in a BMJ journal?”, https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/9073

Abstract. This case study about the ethical behaviour in the field of scholarly publishing documents an exception on the rule for research articles in the medical journal BMJ Open that ICMJE disclosure forms of authors must be made available on request. The ICMJE, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, has developed these forms for the disclosure of conflicts of interest for authors of medical publications. The case refers to the form of the corresponding author of an article in BMJ Open on retraction notices (Moylan and Kowalczuk, 2016). The corresponding author is a member of the council of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics. I will argue that the unavailability of the form relates to personal conflicts of interest with the corresponding author about my efforts to retract a fatally flawed study on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler Acrocephalus griseldis. I describe my attempts to get the form and I will argue that its unavailability can be attributed to partial behaviour by BMJ, the publisher of BMJ Open. This study complements other sources reporting ethical issues at COPE.

• Andrea Stella, “Le politiche italiane sull’università: un serio ostacolo sulla strada della ripresa e della crescita del paese”, https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/6950

The Italian university, after the birth of the Republic, continued for many years to be characterized by a marked centralism, despite the wide autonomy recognized by the Art. 33 of the Italian Constitution. Since the last eighties a progressively increased autonomy has been granted, initially only statutory and then also regulatory, financial, didactic and in recruiting, which provided the universities with the tools to move quickly towards the European and international competition. However, starting from the financial crisis in 2008, all the governments have chosen to dramatically change the course by starting a path of downsizing the university system, with a gradual subtraction of financial resources into the universities and a parallel limitation of autonomy. The impact of the policies adopted has been a disaster and has pushed Italy into the last positions among the European Union countries for funding at universities and last place by number of graduates in the age range of 30-34 years. In line with this approach is also framed the law of December 30, 2010, no. 240, the so-called Gelmini Law, with which a radical reversal of the system has been settled with respect to the previous autonomy policies on the university. The substantial carelessness towards the university, when not the hostility, shown by the policy and the widespread idea that its funding is not seen as an investment, but rather as an expense and a luxury that we cannot afford, leaves little hope for the future of our country and lets us imagine more and more obscure scenarios. Political choices, whether deliberately or not, are progressively leading to the dismantling of the Italian university.

Per il 2018 è in programma un numero monografico dedicato a Research Policy: insights from social epistemology, curato da Eugenio Petrovich e Marco Viola.