Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan 2017-2021

Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan 2017-2021 – Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise

I am delighted to confirm that the Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan (2017-2021) was approved by the University Management Board on Friday 20thJanuary.   I can’t remember who it was who said that planning is bringing the future into the present so you can do something about it now.  This is exactly what we hope to do with our Strategic Plan.  Over the past couple of weeks, I have been visiting our different campuses to update staff on progress with the plan and its implementation.  When you look at other universities’ research and enterprise/innovation strategies, it is obvious how similar they are. They all talk about taking the institute from point A to point B, with B being a better place.  So, they all aspire to a better performance in REF, more external funding, more PgRs, more partnerships and impact.  What differentiates a good strategy from a bad one is how it will be implemented.  Sadly, many strategies fall down at this point and become a Strategy Put On The Shelf (SPOTS) and I have worked in institutions where this has been the case.  Following the fanfare launch of the strategy, everyone is waiting and nothing happens till the next strategy is put in place and the cycle continues.  I am determined that this will not be the case with our Strategic Plan. This is precisely why we have already started to think of the workstreams which will enable the delivery of the strategic goals and objectives.  I am acutely aware that not everyone will be behind all the changes that need to happen: right from the start, there will be the sceptics, the early adopters and those who will resist all the changes.  A plan is only as good as those who see it through, and I know there are many of us who want to see it through and more and more of you will get behind it as you see it being implemented.  As I went round the campus talking to staff, I felt that many of you are keen to engage with the Plan and help it realise its potential.

In few weeks’ time, I will approaching my 6 month anniversary here at Brighton. When I started, I went round every School talking about the need to develop a plan.  At times, I felt that many were ambivalent, questioning and not convinced at all.  Six months on, I can sense a big change and the emails I have received indicate that many of you are eager to get behind the principles and objectives stated in the Plan.  Many have already volunteered to take a more active role in implementing it.   As Professor Howie Rush reminded me at one of the campus meetings, to deliver on 7 goals and 35 objectives is quite an ambitious task, and I could not agree more.  But, we should not shy away from it.  All the objectives are needed and we need to be ambitious.  Intelligence without ambition is like a bird without wings.  Providing we are ambitious, plan well, work hard and keep a close eye on progress, we will make it.

My final word has to be to thank you all for your contributions during the consultations and for all your insightful contributions and comments at various fora and meetings and by emails. Whilst implementing the plan I will do my best to exercise a leadership that will serve the institution and all those within it who are passionate about research and enterprise.

This will be a new era for us and our work has just begun!

Citation cartels

A very happy New Year to you all! I hope you have had a restful break and are looking forward to what the New Year has in store for us.  2016 was quite a year.  Who could have anticipated us leaving the EU, Trump coming to power in the US and the word ‘post-truth’ being selected as the Oxford Dictionary’s ‘Word of the Year’.  Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher, has a wonderful quote: “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”.  When I reflect on the events of June and November in 2016, I think this quote sums it up beautifully.  Here’s to a better 2017.

Now, in this first blog of 2017, I had planned to write about the upcoming campus visits where I will be discussing our new R&E Strategic Plan, but I have decided to write about these after the visits are complete. So, instead, I am going to write about an interesting article that an old friend brought to my attention.  The article is entitled ‘Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks’ and can be accessed in full at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049/full

In many disciplines, the number of citations that an article receives is considered a key measure of academic impact and quality. There are many reasons why an article might be cited.  Sometimes it is because it is the first/only study in the field, sometimes because it gives a good overview of the field or that it is of very high quality and describes the best available evidence in the field.  My most cited journal article (nearly 600 citations) was published in 2002 and is the first and, to date, the only article on a population-based study demonstrating the rise of allergy to peanuts.  I was lucky enough to follow two whole population birth cohorts, born 10 years apart, assessing the incidence of peanut allergy.  So, ever since the publication of this article, most studies in the area cite it.  I am very proud of it but it is, by no means, my best article.

The article I recommend you to read talks about the rising problem of citation cartels. These are defined as groups of authors that cite each other disproportionality more than they do other groups of authors that work in the same area, and which, therefore, artificially increases their citation rates.  The authors have come up with a model that can identify citation cartels by using semantic web tools. They state that their purpose is not to prevent this phenomenon, or to discredit authors that could be accidentally caught in the citation cartel, but to show that citation cartels exist, and that all responsible for publishing papers, Editors and Reviewers need to be aware of this.

I wonder if REF panels who consider citations will also take account of this!