{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "chem-bla-ics", "description": "Chemblaics (pronounced chem-bla-ics) is the science that uses open science and computers to solve problems in chemistry, biochemistry and related fields.", "home_page_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/", "feed_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2026/10/05/open-science-recognition-and-rewards.json", "icon": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/chem-bla-ics_logo.png", "language": "en", "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286", "_orcid": "0000-0001-7542-0286" } ], "items": [ { "id": "https://doi.org/10.59350/gt194-05b24", "url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2026/10/05/open-science-recognition-and-rewards.html", "title": "Open Science and Recognition & Rewards", "content_html": "

In the past 10~ish years there has been a national push towards two themes aimed to improve things\nat our (academic) research institutes: Open Science and Recognition & Rewards. The first addresses\nthe needs to allow (more) people to do research, while the second addresses the conditions under\nwhich we do research. The two Maastricht University pages about how my university looks at these\ntopics are;

\n\n\n\n

The provide a good number of additional pointers for important context.

\n\n

Recognition & Rewards generally is a very complex question. Just thinking about how people reply\nto the Cornell University rape allegations.\nNot every researchers is evaluated in the same way.

\n\n

And then there is the highly complex approach how to compare researchers when the question of\npromotion comes up: qualification or quantification. They both measure certain aspects of our\nperformance, but not all metrics (qualitative or quantitative) actually measure the performance\nof the researcher. The journal impact factor is a clear example of that. The H-index is more\npersonal but also does not really measure what you want to use it for.\nThese things too return with Open science monitoring.\nWe have to monitor such efforts critically (like we do with everything, the researchers we are).

\n\n

The dynamics are fascinating. But they are also essential to my work. I am line manager of\nmultiple researchers, each with their own career paths. Under to modern HR, any Maastricht\nUniversity researcher can opt to use career compass\noption. This career policy gives our employees more freedom how to be evaluated. For example,\nit gives more room for recognition for teaching and for patient care. But all routes have\nfour obligatory topics:

\n\n\n\n

In the evaluation meetings with your development board you will discuss how you\ndid on the activities related to your personal career compass. And then again the\nqualifications and quantification come up. And that opens the can of worms.

\n\n

Now, because open science and team science are used a lot in the\nTheme Bioinformatics\nof our Department of Translational Genomics,\nI like to know what options I have to recognize and reward that.

\n\n

That is why I signed up for the Recognising and Rewarding Open Science\nprogramme that started last week.

", "summary": "In the past 10~ish years there has been a national push towards two themes aimed to improve things at our (academic) research institutes: Open Science and Recognition & Rewards. The first addresses the needs to allow (more) people to do research, while the second addresses the conditions under which we do research. The two Maastricht University pages about how my university looks at these topics are;", "date_published": "2026-10-05T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2026-10-05T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["openscience","rnr","maastricht"], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }