RT @ECPRKnowledge: 🎉 JUST PUBLISHED: Policy Design for Research and Innovation: Politics, Institutions and Interest Intermediation Practice….

🔍If you want to know more about Research & Innovation policy design, policy instruments, and to explore the journey that fueled my PhD, reach out to me ✨.

Join millions who have switched to Grok.

💥My book is officially out 📚💥.@_IPPA_ @Palgrave @SpringerNature . #PolicyInstruments #policy #innovation #policydesign.

📢 Check out our latest paper exploring the transatlantic mobility of researchers (🇪🇺 --> 🇺🇸) and its impact on performance. @bc_holding @schneider_jw @mathiaswullum.

📢📢 We are looking for a Research Assistant. Come and work with us!.

☝️ Given that none of these key findings were preregistered, our results should only be seen as suggestive.

👉 Further, we found indications (not preregistered) of lower responsiveness and data-sharing willingness towards male but not female data requestors with putatively Chinese names. A finding that might reflect an underlying pattern of gender-specific ethnic discrimination.

👉 On average, putatively Chinese data requestors received slightly fewer responses than did requestors with Anglo-Saxon names.

👉 We also found suggestive evidence that response-rates and data-sharing willingness differ depending on who's asking for the data.

👉 We found that people hesitate to share data or even respond to requests: .54% responded to our requests .14 % either shared or indicated willingness to share all or some data.

We tested possible ethnic, gender, country and affiliation-related bias in scientists’ data-sharing willingness in a sample of 1634 scientists from various disciplines indicating intent to make their data available upon request.

Check out my new pre-registered audit study on social bias in data sharing behaviors with @mathiaswullum & @schneider_jw, just out in @ScientificData .#opendata #openscience @OSFramework. 📊

🔥Descriptive survival plots show this difference is more pronounced for journals with single-blind versus double-blind peer preview policies.

🔥#COVID19 papers show institution-related disparities in review times: papers from top-ranked institutions show faster review times than papers from lower-ranked institutions

Our findings:.👉 the pandemic has accelerated peer-review for #COVID19 research in line with previous findings (e.g., & .👉no acceleration was observed for other topics.

Using data on the submission - acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles in 2019-2020, we quantified the impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy.

📢📢 How did the #COVID19 pandemic influenced the duration of the scientific peer-review process? .In this paper ( with @bc_holding @schneider_jw @mathiaswullum we answer this question @plosone.

RT @fmerhout: 🚨Job Alert🚨. I am hiring a postdoc to work with me in the @DFF_raad funded project HABITS combining digital trace & survey da….

Thanks to @ECPRKnowledge @gilibertocapano @kieronflanagan @matguidi for the comments and suggestions on the early versions of this paper.

I also take a step forward in the direction of combining policy instruments and mission/diffusion oriented policy by proposing a R&I policy instrument classification based on authority and automaticity dimensions.