- Sapienza University of Rome
FEBS Constituent Society
FEBS Network special areas
Channels contributed to:RESEARCH EARLY-CAREER SCIENTIST EDUCATOR VIEWPOINTS
Rooms participated in:Coronavirus insights
I have seen a nice publication in the recent issue of Science from the group of Rolf Hingenfeld who is excellent strucural biologist working in Lübeck.
Crystal Strucutre of SARC-COV-2 main protease provides a basis for design of improves alfa.ketoamide inhibitors. Science 24 April 2020 Vol 368 Issue 6489 pp 409-412 open access
Thank you Laszlo, I'm adding it to the list! Andrea
Nice article! Let me add one consideration. Marriages, arranged or otherwise, are not judged by peer review experts. When husband and wife sign a letter or a postcard it is immaterial whose name comes first. Not so in collaboration papers. Competitive access to research funding and publish or perish politics may kill collaborations.
As a post scriptum to this article I remark that Nature has published the commentary: "Italian scientists increase self-citations in response to promotion policy. Study reveals how research evaluations can lead to self-serving behaviour." by Dalmeet Singh Chawla. link: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/italian-scientists-increase-self-citations-in-response-to-promotion-policy
Food for thought! Indeed it is a topic with many facets and open for discussion.
Which should we use as a reference index to objectively evaluate the impact of colleagues' work?
I do not have a solution, aside from what I wrote in the post. Clearly we should first decide which is the scope of evaluation: allocating funds? promoting a scientist's career? awarding a position? Evaluation should be limited at those instances where it is really needed. A wrong use of evaluation is that of justifying reduction of resources: i.e. we have less thus we adopt stricter rules.