For a second year running, the completely online and free Research Impact Summit has drawn a crowd and created vibrant conversations.
Initially, run as an experiment in 2016, The Research Impact Summit delivered a research conference of a different style and definitely of a different price tag. Having found that the most significant struggles for researchers and higher education administrators are typically time and money, I decided to eliminate these from the equation and help share knowledge with as many researchers and research professionals around the globe. To take it a step further I decided to interview the speakers so that we could get some stories, nitty-gritty details of the "how to", and the lessons they have learned along their journey of research impact.
The goal of the Summit was not only to help as many people as possible but to highlight the many elements that go into creating opportunities for research impact. I was tired of the consistent talk of measuring our impact without planning for, and creating opportunities for impact, let alone capturing the impact evidence along the way.
In 2016, over 1200 individuals registered to watch the summit, and over 1500 people tuned in during the free period (not all those that watched registered). Some might say there was a first-time buzz about the summit; however, the 2017 figures were similar, there were slightly fewer registrations, but there were more people who watched online.
Research Impact is on the agenda everywhere.
Globally, the 2016 Summit reached 45 countries while this year the Summit was attended by 56 countries. Some of the new countries reached this year were Malaysia, Tunisia, Argentina, Austria and many other smaller nations joining in. Also noted were increasing numbers from Belgium, Sweeden, Italy, the African nations, Spain, Brazil, Finland and Ireland.
Last year the city with the most content views was Queensland Australia, this year it was Southampton in the United Kingdom.
Interaction and networking
Unlike traditional conferences, the online conference format has fewer opportunities for networking, that said, those that participated on Twitter, in the Facebook Group and the website chat boxes were able to share stories and resources. In 2016, a collaboration was born through the Facebook group, this year I was able to link some connections via email, and there have also been terrific stories from the speakers about the interactions and increased opportunities for collaboration that have been born out of the Summit.
Special thanks must, of course, go to the 24 speakers from 2016 and the 30 speakers from 2017, without which the Summit would not be possible, these speakers generously donate their time. Sincere thanks to all those that watched, Tweeted, sent appreciative emails and participated, making this all worthwhile.
Tamika Heiden is the Founder and Principal of Knowledge Translation Australia – a service that facilitates the movement of research knowledge into life. She works with researchers and research stakeholders to ensure their work is relevant, useful and useable so that it provides benefit and value to society.
If you enjoyed this article or would like to learn some more about research impact, please head on over to www.ktaustralia.com or join our mailing list.
Source: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/28/interview-mdpi-lessons-learned-20-years-open-access-publishing Among various highlights of this year’s SSP Annual Meeting , I unearthed a few well-kept mysteries about MDPI , Swiss-based open-access (OA) journal publisher. Launched 21 years ago by Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, a chemist who graduated from ETH Zurich, MDPI started off as something very different than a publishing house. Despite cycles of controversy , MDPI continues to grow, now employing more than 900 people across seven offices. Their CEO, Dr. Franck Vazquez, joined MDPI just three years ago, after an academic career in life and health sciences. Vazquez, recently appointed to the OASPA board , met with me between SSP sessions to share their story. Tell me about your journals, what disciplines do they address? Am I correct in my understanding that they are all gold OA titles? MDPI launched as a repository for rare chemical samples and, from the s...
Source: http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/ A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science Click to enlarge A brief detour from chemistry, branching out into science in general today. This graphic looks at the different factors that can contribute towards ‘bad’ science – it was inspired by the research I carried out for the recent aluminium chlorohydrate graphic , where many articles linked the compound to causing breast cancer, referencing scientific research which drew questionable conclusions from their results. The vast majority of people will get their science news from online news site articles, and rarely delve into the research that the article is based on. Personally, I think it’s therefore important that people are capable of spotting bad scientific methods, or realising when articles are being economical with the conclusions drawn from research, and that’s what this graphic aims to do. Note that this is not a comprehensive overview, no...
Comments
Post a Comment