BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.2.1//EN TZID:Europe/Amsterdam X-WR-TIMEZONE:Europe/Amsterdam BEGIN:VEVENT UID:294@bmi-online.nl DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20220629T183000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20220629T194500 DTSTAMP:20220421T151923Z URL:https://www.bmi-online.nl/events/research-observatory-bibliometric-exp eriment-with-the-full-text-of-research-papers-online/ SUMMARY:Research Observatory: Bibliometric experiment with the full text of research papers (online) DESCRIPTION:Are self-citations a normal feature of knowledge accumulation?\ nBy Vincent Larivière\n\nScience is a cumulative activity\, in which pas t knowledge serves as a foundation for new knowledge. One of the mechanism s through which the cumulative nature of science manifests itself is the a ct of citing. However\, citations are also central to research evaluation\ , thus creating incentive for researchers to cite their own work. Therefor e\, such self-citations have been one of the most constant criticism again st the use of citation indicators for the measurement of research impact. Using a dataset containing millions of papers and disambiguated authors\, this talk will examine the relative importance of self-citations and self- references in the scholarly communication landscape\, their relationship w ith age and gender of authors\, as well as their effects on various resear ch evaluation indicators. It will also present the results of a comparison of the content of cited and citing papers\, thus making it possible to te st whether researchers cite their own work in order to inflate their impac t indicators. The talk with conclude with a discussion of the role of self -citations in the research ecosystem.\n\nUnderstanding scientific disagree ment\nBy Dakota Murray\n\nHealthy disagreement among scientists drives th e creation of new knowledge and is a necessary precursor to consensus upon which technologies\, policies\, and new knowledge can be built. Yet\, in spite of its prominence in popular and theoretical models of scientific pr ogress\, disagreement has received little empirical attention\, with progr ess stymied by a lack of appropriate data and widely-accepted quantitative indicators. In this talk\, we outline progress in overcoming these challe nges\, illustrating how increasingly-available full-text data and new appr oaches to measuring disagreement are paving the way for a more comprehensi ves\, empirical\, and quantitative understanding of the salience and featu res of disagreement in science at multiple levels of analysis. Using a rig orously-validated cue-word based approach\, instances of disagreement are identified from the citation sentences of millions of publications\, and i ncorporated into a singular indicator of disagreement. Using this indicato r\, we simultaneously reveal the structure of disagreement between macro-l evel fields and the enormous heterogeneity across meso-level subfields. At the micro-level\, we complement these data with published comments—the most unambiguous instance of criticism in science—in order to better und erstand the sociological drivers of disagreement\, including author gender \, seniority\, prestige\, and more. This project establishes a firm method ological and empirical foundation for a science of scientific disagreement \, which will prove essential for validating theories of scientific progre ss\, building tools for scholarly search and discovery\, designing consens us-aware science policy\, and for effectively communicating epistemic unce rtainty and consensus to the public.\n\nMore information.\n\n \;\n\n&n bsp\; CATEGORIES:Cursussen en congressen,Webinar END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20220327T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE END:VCALENDAR