8 results found
Salandra R, Salter A, Walker JT, 2021, Are Academics Willing to Forgo Citations to Publish in High-Status Journals? Examining Preferences for 4*and 4-Rated Journal Publication Among UK Business and Management Academics, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, ISSN: 1045-3172
Criscuolo P, Salandra R, Salter A, 2021, Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care, Research Policy, Vol: 50, ISSN: 0048-7333
Despite increasing concerns about the validity of published research, the issue of how the scientific community can maintain a high-quality body of research is not well understood. We consider the case of systematic reviews in health care, and explore whether risk of bias ratings communicated within these reviews may help shift scientists’ attention towards published research that is at a low risk of bias. We focus on publications deemed at risk of bias due to selective reporting; that is, scientific articles with high chances of systematic errors in the published research findings due to flaws in the reporting. Using a matched-sample control group we find that, after potential bias is signalled in systematic reviews, publications at high risk of bias attract less attention – as indicated by fewer follow-on citations – when compared to a control group of low risk of bias publications. We extend our analysis by considering those cases where risk of bias is unclear, and by examining how different features of the rating system may affect the magnitude of the main effect. The findings provide evidence about whether systematic reviews can play a role in signalling biases in the scientific literature, over and above their established role of synthesising prior research.
Perkmann M, Salandra R, Tartari V, et al., 2021, Academic engagement: a review of the literature 2011-2019, Research Policy, Vol: 50, ISSN: 0048-7333
We provide a systematic review of the literature on academic engagement from 2011 onwards which was the cutoff year of a previous review in Research Policy. Academic engagement refers to knowledge-related interactions of academic scientists with external organizations, set apart from research, teaching and commercialization. It includes activities such as collaborative research with industry, contract research, consulting and informal ties. We consolidate what is known about the individual, organizational and institutional antecedents of academic engagement, and its consequences for research, commercialization, and society at large. Our findings suggest that individual characteristics associated with academic engagement include being scientifically productive, senior, male, locally trained, and commercially experienced. Academic engagement is also socially conditioned by peer effects and within applied disciplines. In terms of consequences, academic engagement is positively associated with academics' subsequent scientific productivity. We also propose new areas of investigation where evidence is still inconclusive, including individual life cycles effects, the role of organizational context and incentives, cross-national comparison, and the impact of academic engagement on the quality of subsequent research as well as educational, commercial and society-wide impact.
Walker JT, Salter A, Fontinha R, et al., 2019, The impact of journal re-grading on perception of ranking systems: Exploring the case of the Academic Journal Guide and Business and Management scholars in the UK, RESEARCH EVALUATION, Vol: 28, Pages: 218-231, ISSN: 0958-2029
Walker JT, Fenton E, Salter A, et al., 2019, What Influences Business Academics' Use of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) List? Evidence From a Survey of UK Academics, BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 30, Pages: 730-747, ISSN: 1045-3172
Salandra R, 2018, Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting, Research Policy, Vol: 47, Pages: 1215-1228, ISSN: 0048-7333
This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.
Salter A, Salandra R, Walker JT, 2017, Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics, Research Policy, Vol: 46, Pages: 1769-1782, ISSN: 0048-7333
Academics are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their research with external actors. Some national research assessment systems have mandated academics to document their impact on non-academic actors, and linked research funding to assessments of these impacts. Although there has been considerable debate around the design of these systems, little is known about how academics perceive the value of impact against more conventional academic outputs, such as publications. Using multisource data, including a large-scale survey of UK business and management academics, this paper explores the individual and institutional factors that explain an individual’s preference for impact versus publication. The results show that academics display a preference for impact over publications, even when that impact is not associated with requirements of the assessment system in terms of rigour of the underpinning research. The preference for impact over publications is heightened by organization tenure, non-academic work experience, intrinsic career motivations and research-intensive contexts, while it is weakened by academic influence, extrinsic career motives and academic rank. We explore the implications of these findings for the design of research assessment systems and academics’ reactions to them.
Nosella A, Petroni G, Salandra R, 2008, Technological change and technology monitoring process: Evidence from four Italian case studies, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, Vol: 25, Pages: 321-337, ISSN: 0923-4748
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.