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. Working Paper2026Open Access
    Are University Journals Truly Local? National and Institutional Anchoring in Seven Research Systems(opens in a new tab)

    Nazarovets, Maryna; Beigel, Fernanda; Van Schalkwyk, François B.; Taşkın, Zehra; Meng, Ping

    University journals (UJs) are often described as local or inward-looking, although national and institutional embeddedness are rarely distinguished. This study examines the internationally indexed segment of university journals, analysing Web of Science-indexed titles from seven countries with contrasting publishing traditions and evaluation regimes (Argentina, China, Germany, South Africa, Türkiye, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom), based on publications from 2022-2024. National anchoring (N-Anch) measures the share of papers with at least one author from the journal’s home country, while institutional anchoring (I-Anch) captures participation by authors from the publishing university. The results reveal a clear divergence between these dimensions. National anchoring is high in Türkiye, China, Ukraine, South Africa, and Argentina, but considerably lower in Germany and UK university-press journals. Institutional anchoring remains low across all countries. Thus, strong integration into a national research community does not imply institutional anchoring. The findings show that patterns of national and institutional anchoring vary substantially across countries with different research, evaluation, and publishing systems and cannot be explained by university ownership alone.