"Festival of Hidden REF: Breaking Down Research Barriers"

✨️The True Certificate of a Researcher Is Not on Paper We often see numerous scientific conferences and symposiums where researchers from various disciplines participate. However, the true value of these academic spaces does not lie in the large number of certificates or names on the participant lists, but rather in the qualitative contribution each researcher brings through their ideas and solutions. I remember once being asked by a colleague to deliver a presentation at a conference taking place on the same day. Although I was familiar with the topic, I declined because it was not within my precise field of specialization. Scientific participation is not a mere formality or a certificate added to one’s résumé — it is a responsibility that requires offering genuine value to both knowledge and society. During the organization of one conference, we were keen to ensure that the theme was precise — one that only specialists could truly contribute to. Yet, some challenges emerged: Some senior professors refused to serve as reviewers, believing that merely having their names on the list of participants was enough to receive a certificate, even though peer review itself is a crucial role that enriches scientific work. Some participants did not attend in person but still demanded certificates of participation, despite the requirement of presence and active contribution. These experiences raise a fundamental question: Are scientific conferences meant to multiply names and certificates, or to generate real solutions to societal and human challenges? No academic event can achieve its purpose unless it focuses on quality over quantity, encourages a culture of genuine contribution, and recognizes that the true certificate is the impact a researcher leaves on knowledge and society. 🌿 In a world that often values quantity, let us always remember: real worth lies in quality and impact. #Dr_Manel_Sekhri #ScientificResearch #Knowledge #QualityOverQuantity #AcademicDevelopment #ScientificConferences #RealContribution #ResearchImpact #د_منال_سخري #بحث_علمي #المعرفة #النوعية_قبل_الكم #تطوير_أكاديمي #ملتقيات_علمية #الإضافة_الحقيقية #أثر_الباحث

Scientific work must be thorough and cannot be driven primarily by social or economic pressure. There were a few years when I was unhappy that I didn't have many publications. I shouldn't be ashamed, I do my best. and my best has a high value. Recently, there are different voices in academia regarding the ideal number of publications. Some voices support 1-2 publications per year, thus preventing researchers from joining to publications that are clearly not theirs. This sounds like an interesting idea. Focusing on autonomous research and submitting only material that is worthy of publication are great. When we're not exploring, there are enough activities to fill the schedule: group meetings, peer review, exposure to current literature, academic visits, and participation in national and international conferences. and also resting which is critical. The scientific literature is already flooded with millions of articles and thousands of books, so why not publish only what is truly new, exciting and relevant to a wide audience? I.

Is academic research becoming too competitive? Nature Magazine examines the data Applications for European Research Council (ERC) increased in 2025. Scientists say they’re feeling the competition UCC Research Nóirín Uí Bhreithiúnaigh Niamh Mundow Paolo Saporito https://lnkd.in/erD3wgpU

Is academic research becoming too competitive? Nature examines the data Applications for European research grants increased in 2025. Scientists say they’re feeling the competition. https://lnkd.in/dhRU9WFV

The lack of direct money for scientific research means that all research gets pre-screened by reviewers through proposals. This is born out of a negative sentiment: the fear that scientists would otherwise waste time on nonsense. But the process means that the level of ambition of research has to be lowered to a level that an average scientist considers feasible. This stands in the way of truly ambitious research and levels science down to the middle-of-the-road.

🌟 Understanding the Difference Between a Research Gap and a Research Problem 🌟 In academic research, it’s essential to clearly distinguish between a research gap and a research problem — two foundational elements that shape the direction and purpose of any study. 🔹 Research Gap: Represents a missing piece in existing knowledge — what is not yet known. Identifying this gap helps you understand where your research can contribute to the scientific community. 🔹 Research Problem: Represents a specific issue that needs to be addressed — what has not yet been solved. This defines why your study is important and what you aim to achieve. In simple terms: > A research gap guides you toward discovery, while a research problem drives you toward solutions. 🎓 Whether you're a PhD scholar, a postgraduate student, or a researcher, mastering this distinction strengthens the clarity and impact of your research design.

The pressure for rapid dissemination of research is intense, but we must ask: At what point does the drive for speed compromise scientific rigor? This thought-provoking piece explores "The Hidden Cost of Speed," challenging researchers, editors, and institutions to find the right balance between pace and quality. A crucial conversation for the future of research. https://lnkd.in/ddTqdu8J #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #SciencePolicy #HigherEd

We were pleased to speak to Andy Phippen from Bournemouth University and Louise Rutt from University of Plymouth on Tuesday about their recent research into research impact and why engaging beyond academia is fundamental for broadening research ideology.     Andy and Louise shared some of their findings from their recent research into research impact in academia. Some highlights for us were: 💡 Impact can't be forced - the best examples of high-impact research came from individual researchers who were hugely passionate about the topic. 💡 Building connections take time, but cultivating your personal network is key. 💡 Research impact should be seen as being co-produced with the researcher, rather than as an administrative task. You can read more about Andy and Louise's work by checking out their book here: https://lnkd.in/dzVgKMA6

This year, the EU funding agency has received the highest number of proposals in its four-decade history, with no increase in budget. As Nature Magazine reports, success rates are plunging: https://lnkd.in/eQapb9zb Pushing this trend there is a culture of assessing a researcher’s success by how much money they attract. This metric benefits universities and research institutions, which rely on the overheads that grants bring. But let’s not forget: this is not a metric that drives better, more efficient science. If we wanted to globally maximise scientific output and creative innovation, we would measure what a researcher achieves with every euro/pound/dollar they receive, which would controversially put research income in the denominator, not the numerator of the success metric.

Wise words from Ricardo Grau-Crespo. Moreover, lower success rates also mean that more and more researchers spend a lot of their precious time writing research proposals that are ultimately rejected, leading to less time available for actively engaging in research, student supervision/mentoring etc.