TY - GEN
T1 - Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science
AU - Lagisz, Malgorzata
AU - Rutkowska, Joanna
AU - Aich, Upama
AU - Ross, Robert
AU - Santana, Manuela Santos
AU - Wang, Joshua
AU - Trubanová, Nina
AU - Page, Matthew
AU - Pua, Andrew Adrian
AU - Yang, Yefeng
AU - Amin, Bawan
AU - Martinig, April Robin
AU - Barnett, Adrian
AU - Surendran, Aswathi
AU - zhang, ju
AU - Borg, David N
AU - JAFSIA, ELISEE
AU - Wrightson, J G
AU - Nakagawa, Shinichi
PY - 2023/12/12
Y1 - 2023/12/12
N2 - Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the “best” journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner’s pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one-percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.
AB - Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the “best” journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner’s pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one-percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.11.571170
U2 - 10.1101/2023.12.11.571170
DO - 10.1101/2023.12.11.571170
M3 - Other contribution
ER -