Researchers should idolize a method or metrics that aims in differentiating Researcher’s assessments with that of Research assessment. Researchers should not just focus solely on the END result. Of course it’s necessary to ascertain research productivity. But research involves end-less optimizations and hence cultural shift towards better practices will be fool-proof if we also start focus ourselves on all the steps involved in research workflow. The possible consequences of focusing solely on the end result may be extrapolated to longer durations of conducting research, as researchers always worry about how they can create a story around the results that can be published (narration), well to address this already has started an initiative to encourage researchers to stop worrying about the narration and keep publishing results, and narrate on the go. Other consequences may be that researchers suffer from peer pressures to publish and hence may be encouraged to adopt unethical standards of skewing and improper repetitions to confirm data and results which finally may have lead to raise of problems like Irreproducibility. Like recent developments in this regard taken by one of the funder Wellcome Open Research platform to make the all the associated outputs of research openly available & innovation towards making research community work smarter & discover more. Perhaps the by Kramer & Bosman suggest that the its about connecting the dots together & it’s more about people, practice & interoperability than the tools. So working in this direction & going a step further we are developing open workflow ()embracing the priority of all the individual stakeholder in the scholarly ecosystem so that Open Science & research becomes a reality. Of course there will be further studies to test this hypothesis, building collaborations with partners in this space & investigate sustainability/business model. Acknowledgements Authors thank Dr. Fiona Murphy for enriching discussions, Constructive criticisms of the manuscript preparation, and also for corrections in the initial drafts of the manuscript. References:
Researchers should idolize a method or metrics that aims in differentiating Researcher’s assessments with that of Research assessment. Researchers should not just focus solely on the END result. Of course it’s necessary to ascertain research productivity. But research involves end-less optimizations and hence cultural shift towards better practices will be fool-proof if we also start focus ourselves on all the steps involved in research workflow. The possible consequences of focusing solely on the end result may be extrapolated to longer durations of conducting research, as researchers always worry about how they can create a story around the results that can be published (narration), well to address this already has started an initiative to encourage researchers to stop worrying about the narration and keep publishing results, and narrate on the go. Other consequences may be that researchers suffer from peer pressures to publish and hence may be encouraged to adopt unethical standards of skewing and improper repetitions to confirm data and results which finally may have lead to raise of problems like Irreproducibility. Like recent developments in this regard taken by one of the funder Wellcome Open Research platform to make the all the associated outputs of research openly available & innovation towards making research community work smarter & discover more. Perhaps the by Kramer & Bosman suggest that the its about connecting the dots together & it’s more about people, practice & interoperability than the tools. So working in this direction & going a step further we are developing open workflow ()embracing the priority of all the individual stakeholder in the scholarly ecosystem so that Open Science & research becomes a reality. Of course there will be further studies to test this hypothesis, building collaborations with partners in this space & investigate sustainability/business model. Acknowledgements Authors thank Dr. Fiona Murphy for enriching discussions, Constructive criticisms of the manuscript preparation, and also for corrections in the initial drafts of the manuscript. References:
ds-paper-491.docx