multiobs

Our Recent Productions

Datasets, working papers, and peer-reviewed articles produced by MultiObs researchers.

Showing 1–2 of 2

  1. Working Paper2026Open Access
    From interdependent movements to shared action: Connecting publishing and assessment reforms(opens in a new tab)

    Waltman, Ludo; de Moura Rocha Lima, Giovanna; Corker, Katherine S.; Dijkstal, Felix; Lawrence, Rebecca; Barbour, Virginia; Boulton, Geoffrey; Brasil, André; Dube, Nosisa; Gadd, Elizabeth; Hatch, Anna; Hill, Mandy; Joseph, Heather; Kiermer, Veronique; Koley, Moumita; Lynott, Dermot; Murray, Susan; Naidorf, Judith; Pölönen, Janne; Pattinson, Damian; Puebla, Iratxe; Ratan, Kristen; Rieck, Katharina; Shawrav, Mostafa Moonir

    Research assessment and scholarly publishing play interconnected roles in shaping research culture, incentives, and norms that ultimately determine what knowledge is produced, communicated, trusted, and rewarded. These two interdependent components of the research system are undergoing change, fueled by initiatives that share core principles, goals, and challenges, but act largely in parallel. Coordinated action in assessment and publishing reform holds the opportunity for more effective, fairer, and more durable change. The problems in research assessment and scholarly publishing are well documented, from overreliance on journal prestige and the dominance of selective bibliographic databases to the underrecognition of peer review and the limited visibility of research outputs beyond journal articles. Various reform initiatives have emerged to deal with these problems, both in the research assessment domain and in the scholarly publishing domain. However, these problems cannot be effectively addressed by a reform in either of these domains alone. Reform needs to be coordinated across domains. Fragmented reform efforts may not only duplicate work, but may also send inconsistent signals to researchers and institutions, which may undermine the adoption of more responsible practices. Stronger coordination creates tangible benefits across the research system. For reform initiatives, it increases collective reach, legitimacy, and influence while reducing duplication of effort and strengthening shared messages. For research performing and funding organizations, and policymakers, it provides a more coherent foundation for policy development and implementation, enabling organizations to draw on shared experience while adapting approaches to their own missions and contexts. For researchers, coordination helps ensure that emerging practices in scholarly publishing are recognized and rewarded consistently, reducing uncertainty and creating more pathways for diverse contributions to be valued. In this paper, we give an overview of how we are considering these issues and propose ways forward for coordinating the reform movements in research assessment and scholarly publishing. Importantly, this coordination is not intended to replace existing initiatives or create new layers of governance. Rather, it is a light-touch and inclusive effort to coordinate agendas, amplify existing work, and promote shared learning.

  2. Article2026Open Access
    Scientific mobility, prestige and topic alignment in research institutions(opens in a new tab)

    Ferreira, Márcia R.; Costas, Rodrigo; Servedio, Vito D. P.; Thurner, Stefan

    Research institutions are crucial in driving intellectual, social, and technological progress. Their ability to innovate depends mainly on their ability to attract, retain, and nurture scientific talent, ultimately making it available to other organizations, industries, or the economy. As researchers change institutions during their careers, their research topics also shift. The extent and mechanisms by which research institutions manage their internal portfolio of scientific topics through the attraction and deployment of researchers are far from well understood. We examine 25 million publication histories of 9.2 million scientists extracted from a large-scale bibliographic database covering thousands of research institutions worldwide to understand how the topics of mobile scientists align with those present in-house. We find a correlation between top-ranked institutions and greater topic alignment, i.e., the degree to which topics of incoming academics match those of their colleagues at the institution. We uncover a similarly high level of alignment among scientists leaving top-ranked institutions. The alignment of research topics in research institutions is more pronounced in engineering, life, health, earth, and physical sciences than in mathematics, computer science, social sciences, and the humanities. We show that institutions have generally become more closely aligned in their overall topic profile over the past two decades. We interpret these results in terms of the levels of proactive management of the composition of the scientific workforce and internal collaboration strategies at the institutional level.