Programme
12 Nov 2025, 14.00-17.00, Huygens HG01.060 (first floor, central corridor)
14.00 Presentation: The effect of PubPeer comments on the authors that received a comment and authors that cite a commented paper
Wytske Hepkema (ISiS/Science)
“We share the first results from our survey in which we asked authors of papers that received a PubPeer comment, and authors that cite a paper with a PubPeer comment about the influence of the PubPeer comment. “
14.35 Presentation: A historical inquiry into Dutch impact evaluation policies.
Sophie van der Does (ISiS/Science)
“Universities around the globe are increasingly asked to justify their existence by demonstrating their societal impact on society. One prominent expectation from research funders is that transdisciplinary collaborations between scientists and societal stakeholders can help in achieving this goal. This article offers an historical inquiry into the rise of ‘societal impact’ from 1970’s until the present as an emerging key element of the current assessment system in the Netherlands, a country which has developed its own specific processes to evaluate societal impact of academic research. We start from the assumption that policies are taken as a particular solution for a particular problem at a certain moment. Articulations of the problem are part of an ongoing discussion that can be traced back to early problematizations of the notion of societal impact. This article therefore aims to contribute to an explication of 1) why and for whom societal impact is stimulated, 2) by which means impact is stimulated and 3) what kind of problems ought to be solved by incentivizing impact. A historical approach shows the continuing relevance of thinking about how ‘new’ types of knowledge production, including transdisciplinary research, latch onto current societal issues they aim to understand and solve.”
15.10 Break
15.25 Presentation: Gaming the peer review system: a sophisticated review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity
René Aquarius (Meta-research/UMC)
“A review mill is a network of researchers who game the peer review system to apparently boost their citations. Members write generic review reports containing suggestions for citations to the work of those in the review mill. I will present compelling evidence for a review mill in the field of gynaecological oncology.“
16.00 The reconfiguration of peers in editorial review: preliminary results of DISAPEER
Serge Horbach (ISiS/Science)
AI, interdisciplinarity and the drive for open science have a profound influence on how journals assess papers for publication and the role of peer review within editorial assessment. Some insight into how editorial processes are organised based on interviews, ethnographic observations, and quantitative analyses.
16.35 Open discussion: plans for RROSA
Grant calls, project plans, ideas, requests and suggestions for the RROSA network.
Willem Halffman 