As my latest research reveals, the prestige of a book publisher yields points for getting government funding, not only in my home country Lithuania, but also in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and other countries.

Online or offline? Where to begin? In the spring of this year – right as Europe’s “first wave” hit – we started thinking about how to organise our second-ever research retreat. We considered several options. The preference was to once again organise the research retreat on the location of a beautiful repurposed monastery in the province of Noord-Brabant, like it was last year, this time keeping the 1.5 metres distance rule in mind.

*This is the last blog post on the Evaluative Inquiry, the new approach to research evaluation that CWTS has been developing since 2017, following one on broadening the concept of academic value ,**evaluating research in context * and mixing methods . In evaluations of any kind people often distinguish between summative and formative evaluations (see for example the classic Evaluator’s Handbook from

Halloween 2019. A team of seven at CWTS is hectically working on the launch of the institute’s new science blog. Getting the last settings in WordPress right, preparing a quick announcement, entering the first posts (so that things don’t look too empty) – we (the editorial team) were rather excited. 53 blog posts later, it is time to reflect a bit. Admittedly, we started out rather open-mindedly.

Why should you care? How do you evaluate a university? This question does not have an easy answer. However, there is an attribute that is typically considered relevant: the production of scientific papers. However, papers are not created by the university per se , they are created by individuals who are affiliated to a university.

Over the past two decades, the open access movement has made significant progress in promoting the free accessibility and reusability of scholarly publications. About half of the publications from recent years are free to access and reuse. However, are accessibility and reusability sufficient for a well-functioning system of scholarly publishing?

Why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds? This is a question Marta Hejer and Wytske Versteeg ask in a recent paper for Territory, Politics, Governance . It is a question I ask myself almost every day. Hejer and Versteeg contend that 'use of fossil fuels is deeply embedded in our societal values and everyday routines' and that 'as a consequence, we lack coherent imaginaries of alternative post-fossil futures'.

Barry Bozeman’s new article on ‘Public Value Science’ raises one of the most fundamental questions in science policy: Who benefits from science? His answer is clear: right now the benefits tend to go to the rich while the ­negative impacts, such as unemployment or pollution, differentially affect the poor.

Search has long been revolutionized by knowledge-graph-powered services such as the Amazon Marketplace in e-commerce, or Open Street Maps in the cartography and navigation services domains, to name just two examples. Inspired by such knowledge graph (KG) success stories in the general domain, such technology is now being realized over scholarly knowledge as well.

In recent years, bibliometric databases have substantially improved the consistency and quality of the metadata extracted from publications, particularly the author-affiliations linkages from scientific publications. Furthermore, author-name disambiguation algorithms have been implemented for most large bibliometric databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions.