Comments for Strategic Research Plan

Comment on SRP Part Two: Thematic Focus by Matthew Perras - PhD Geological Sciences & Geological Engineering

Matthew Perras - PhD Geological Sciences & Geological Engineering — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:34:37 +0000

The GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC (page 12 of the SRP, Part 2 – Thematic Focus) is more than just “in Civil Engineering”. It includes, Mining Engineering and Geological Engineering as well. These are important contributors to the research center. I think that it is important to include these as well as Civil Engineering in the description as it speaks to the interdisciplinary nature of this group.

Thank you for your considerations.
Regards,
Matthew Perras

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by udo schuklenk

udo schuklenk — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:48:26 +0000

Guess it would be important to compare like with like, ie compare sociology citations with sociology citations. Citation patterns differ widely by field, hence it wouldn’t be helpful to compare a philosopher’s impact with that of a clinician. Same for productivity (ie quantity of peer reviewed papers). Same for IF (to gauge journal impact – as opposed to that elusive quality). You got to compare impact of journals in the same basket of journals, not impact as such. Comparing the impact of theology journals with the impact of physics journals would be pointless, comparing theology journals amongst each other seems fair game. Having said hat, I do think journal impact factors are one essential tool with which to gauge the relevance of an author’s contribution to academic discourse in his or her field.

Comment on How might Queen’s better promote interactions amongst researchers, and increase collaborations and interdisciplinary research initiatives? by Michael White

Michael White — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:01:22 +0000

One way to encourage collaborations and interdisciplinary research is to provide better university level support for campus-wide research data management systems, e.g. electronic lab notebooks, inventory systems, etc.. Instead of every faculty, centre or department building or purchasing their own RDMS, the university could explore purchasing a single system that could be used by multiple research units. CambridgeSoft’s ChemBioOffice suite of products is one example. One common system could make it easier for researchers to work collaboratively, share data, manage lab inventories, etc.

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by Michael Cummings

Michael Cummings — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:52:12 +0000

I agree with Joy Wee that the university cannot equate research success with funding and grants, although that has been the general trend. There are academic areas where what one needs is time, not equipment, teams of research assistants, etc.

Comment on General Comments by Michael Cummings

Michael Cummings — Tue, 31 May 2011 19:38:18 +0000

I have serious doubts about trying to quantify research based on place of publication. I see Australia is giving up trying to rank journals: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/end-of-an-era-journal-rankings-dropped/story-e6frgcjx-1226065864847
In my field, I would honestly say that I believe there is no significant difference in quality among the top 25 or so journals, perhaps even the top 40.

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by knox

knox — Fri, 27 May 2011 15:08:39 +0000

Thank you for your comment.
We will be submitting all comments to the Research Community Committee for consideration.

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by Joy Wee

Joy Wee — Fri, 27 May 2011 12:43:37 +0000

Global impact, citations, publications (conferences and literature), and educational impact would be good to consider. Would caution against equating value of research with size of grant funding and specific granting agencies – this would serve to limit academic freedom and discovery.

Comment on What do you see as the strategic balance between foundational/applied research and advancing partnerships and knowledge translation? by Kelly Blair-Matuk

Kelly Blair-Matuk — Fri, 13 May 2011 15:50:42 +0000

An article worth reading:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110419/full/472269a.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by Kelly Blair-Matuk

Kelly Blair-Matuk — Fri, 13 May 2011 15:09:28 +0000

Thanks very much for your message, and for participating in this process. I will forward your comments appropriately for distribution to the Research Community Committee.

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by Michael White

Michael White — Fri, 13 May 2011 14:59:39 +0000

Citation metrics can be very useful tools for gauging research quality and impact. Raw citation counts may be crude indicators but there are a number of more sophisticated metrics such as the h-index, contemporary h-index, Eigenfactor, Article Influence scores, etc. There are also a number of citation analysis tools such as Web of Science and Publish or Perish that can help researchers evaluate their impact.

In addition to citation metrics, other performance indicators might include the number of internationally coauthored articles, books and other works; according to the NSF, coauthored articles grew from 40% of the world’s total science & engineering articles in 1988 to 64% in 2008. The number of invention disclosures and patent applications might also be measured; universities are starting to recognize faculty for obtaining patents and the NSF counts both articles and patents as research outputs.

Comment on General Comments by Kelly Blair-Matuk

Kelly Blair-Matuk — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:35:20 +0000

Please visit the News & Events page for the first update on the SRP review process.

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by blair-matuk

blair-matuk — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:21:15 +0000

Thank you for your comment. We will be submitting all comments to the Research Community Committee for consideration.

Comment on 2003/2006 Strategic Research Plan by blair-matuk

blair-matuk — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:19:09 +0000

Jeff,

Yes, this is the document that is under review. The 2003/2006 Strategic Research Plan was developed both in response to the requirements established by the Canada Research Chairs and Canada Foundation for Innovation programs, and was also intended to form the framework for research at Queen’s more broadly.

Comment on 2003/2006 Strategic Research Plan by Jeff McGill

Jeff McGill — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:36:30 +0000

The downloadable 2003/2006 plan is subtitled: “for the Canada Research Chairs and Canada Foundation for Innovation Programs ”

Is that the document that you intended?

Comment on Reflecting on both internal and external factors, what key performance indicators (metrics) do you think Queen’s should be assessing the SRP against? by bork

bork — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:35:42 +0000

The use of top-tier journal publications and books on respected university presses are good starting points — but why not number of citations? Citations are a crude indicator of how much any given piece of research is being read and applied. There is a bit of magic in this (in that certain fields become suddenly ‘hot’ independent of research quality), but it would be another worthwhile set of data to try and track.