Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
Profil
Forschungsthemen9
Beschäftigungsbedingungen und Personalpolitik an Hochschulen in Deutschland
Quelle ↗Zeitraum: 10/2014 - 03/2016 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
Diversität und Anpassungsfähigkeit des Peer Review – zur Metastabilität von Peer-Review-Formaten (DivA)
Quelle ↗Förderer: Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt Zeitraum: 11/2020 - 10/2023 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart, Dr. Cornelia Schendzielorz
Navigating Societal Impact
Quelle ↗Förderer: Stiftung Mercator Zeitraum: 05/2020 - 03/2022 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart, Tim Flink
Neue Wege in der Hochschulmedizin: Karriereentwicklung und Translation zwischen Autonomie und Kooperation (KeTAK) – Teilvorhaben CSP
Quelle ↗Förderer: Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt Zeitraum: 11/2020 - 10/2023 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart, Dr. Barbara Hendriks
Predatory publishing practices: Paper tigers or actual threats from evaluation systems?
Quelle ↗Förderer: Volkswagen Stiftung Zeitraum: 09/2024 - 08/2028 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
SPP 1409: Reviews als Legitimationsressource neuer Forschungsfelder. Die Rolle von wissenschaftlichen Reviews als strategischem Medium im Legitimationsprozess zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft am Beispiel der Synthetischen Biologie.
Quelle ↗Förderer: DFG Schwerpunktprogramm Zeitraum: 10/2013 - 08/2016 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
Summer School der Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung
Quelle ↗Förderer: Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt Zeitraum: 03/2015 - 12/2015 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
The Reconfiguration of Peers in Editorial Review (Disapeer)
Quelle ↗Förderer: Volkswagen Stiftung Zeitraum: 09/2024 - 08/2028 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
VA: TN-Beitäge: Summer School
Quelle ↗Zeitraum: 03/2015 - 10/2015 Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
Mögliche Industrie-Partner10
Stand: 26.4.2026, 19:48:44 (Top-K=20, Min-Cosine=0.4)
- 29 Treffer60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science TeachingP60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching
- 28 Treffer60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science TeachingP60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching
- 29 Treffer60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science TeachingP60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching
- 28 Treffer60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science TeachingP60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching
- 28 Treffer60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science TeachingP60.2%
- The Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching
- 32 Treffer59.0%
- EU: Observatory for Political Texts in European Democracies: A European Research Infrastructure (OPTED)P59.0%
- EU: Observatory for Political Texts in European Democracies: A European Research Infrastructure (OPTED)
- 17 Treffer55.6%
- Zuwendung im Rahmen des Programms „exist – Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft“ aus dem Bundeshaushalt, Einzelplan 09, Kapitel 02, Titel 68607, Haushaltsjahr 2026, sowie aus Mitteln des Europäischen Strukturfonds (hier Euro-päischer Sozialfonds Plus – ESF Plus) Förderperiode 2021-2027 – Kofinanzierung für das Vorhaben: „exist Women“T55.6%
- Zuwendung im Rahmen des Programms „exist – Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft“ aus dem Bundeshaushalt, Einzelplan 09, Kapitel 02, Titel 68607, Haushaltsjahr 2026, sowie aus Mitteln des Europäischen Strukturfonds (hier Euro-päischer Sozialfonds Plus – ESF Plus) Förderperiode 2021-2027 – Kofinanzierung für das Vorhaben: „exist Women“
- 5 Treffer55.1%
- DFG-Sachbeihilfe: Aufmerksamkeit und sensorische Integration im aktiven Sehen von bewegten ObjektenP55.1%
- SFB 1315/2: Mechanismen und Störungen der Gedächtniskonsolidierung: Von Synapsen zur SystemebeneP46.5%
- DFG-Sachbeihilfe: Aufmerksamkeit und sensorische Integration im aktiven Sehen von bewegten Objekten
- 27 Treffer55.0%
- Begleitforschung zum Berliner Schulversuch HybridunterrichtP55.0%
- Begleitforschung zum Berliner Schulversuch Hybridunterricht
- 37 Treffer54.5%
- TRAIN 4 Science - Gamification zur Analyse und Reflexion von Kontroversen in Wissenschaft und GesellschaftP54.5%
- TRAIN 4 Science - Gamification zur Analyse und Reflexion von Kontroversen in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft
Publikationen25
Top 25 nach Zitationen — Quelle: OpenAlex (BAAI/bge-m3 embedded für Matching).
The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles
2016Current Sociology · 149 Zitationen · DOI
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.
Scientometrics · 77 Zitationen · DOI
Nomos eBooks · 51 Zitationen · DOI
Höchst umstritten, doch offenbar unverzichtbar – Peer Review trifft als zentraler Mechanismus der Selbststeuerung in der Wissenschaft Entscheidungen über Publikationen, Finanzierungen und Karrieren. Seine Konstanz und Funktion verlangt nach soziologischen und philosophischen Erklärungen.
Theories of Valuation – Building Blocks for Conceptualizing Valuation between Practice and Structure
2017Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) · 44 Zitationen · DOI
Phenomena of attributing value to objects, practices, and people, and of assessing their value have become a popular subject in sociological research. Classification, among other valuation practices, represents a central topic in these studies. Thus, the sociology of valuation is emerging as a new field that, however, lacks common ground in theorizing about its subject even though preoccupation with valuation has a long-standing history in sociology. Authors such as Durkheim, Simmel, and Dewey have interpreted valuation as more than a specific localizable phenomenon, in that valuation is a constitutive element of the fundament of the social. Discussing classical approaches to valuation and relating them to current sociological work, we identify key concepts within different theoretical approaches that need to be taken into account when theorizing valuation. We suggest five building blocks – valuation practices, value structures, valuation infrastructure, valuation situations, and reflexivity of valuation – theories of valuation need to consider for coming to terms with the multi-faceted empirical studies in the sociology of valuation.
Berliner Journal für Soziologie · 41 Zitationen · DOI
Minerva · 36 Zitationen · DOI
Rätsel und Paranoia als Methode – Vorschläge zu einer Innovationsforschung der Sozialwissenschaften
2016transcript Verlag eBooks · 35 Zitationen · DOI
Quantitative Science Studies · 27 Zitationen · DOI
Abstract Using a novel combination of methods and data sets from two national funding agency contexts, this study explores whether review sentiment can be used as a reliable proxy for understanding peer reviewer opinions. We measure reviewer opinions via their review sentiments on both specific review subjects and proposals’ overall funding worthiness with three different methods: manual content analysis and two dictionary-based sentiment analysis algorithms (TextBlob and VADER). The reliability of review sentiment to detect reviewer opinions is addressed by its correlation with review scores and proposals’ rankings and funding decisions. We find in our samples that review sentiments correlate with review scores or rankings positively, and the correlation is stronger for manually coded than for algorithmic results; manual and algorithmic results are overall correlated across different funding programs, review sections, languages, and agencies, but the correlations are not strong; and manually coded review sentiments can quite accurately predict whether proposals are funded, whereas the two algorithms predict funding success with moderate accuracy. The results suggest that manual analysis of review sentiments can provide a reliable proxy of grant reviewer opinions, whereas the two SA algorithms can be useful only in some specific situations.
Social Studies of Science · 22 Zitationen · DOI
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highly visible, while investigation and decision-making procedures remain mostly invisible. This corresponds to high levels of acceptance of sanctions in the scientific community, but a low acceptance of the respective authorities. Such a punitiveness in turn exacerbates confidentiality concerns, so that authorities become even more secretive. We argue that punitiveness towards scientific misconduct is driven by such a cycle of invisibility.
Research Evaluation · 20 Zitationen · DOI
The primary purpose of this study is to open up the black box of peer review and to increase its transparency, understanding, and credibility. To this end, two arguments will be presented: First, epistemic and social aspects of peer review procedures are inseparable and mutually constitutive. Second, a content analysis of written reviews indicates that certain elements of peer culture from the 17 th century are still active in the scientific community. These arguments are illustrated by a case study on the peer review practices of a national funding institution, the Swiss National Science Foundation. Based on the case study and the two arguments it will be concluded more generally that peer review procedures show a distinctive specificity to the reviewed objects (e.g. papers or proposals), the organisational format (e.g. panels or external reviewers), or the surrounding context (e.g. disciplinary or interdisciplinary). Scientists, administrators, and the public may conclude that appraising peer review procedures should not be done by way of general principals but should be based on concrete factual knowledge on the specific process under discussion.
Journal of Responsible Innovation · 18 Zitationen · DOI
‘The Lottery in Babylon’ is the title of a vivid dystopian short story by Jorge Luis Borges. It envisions a society in which every individual's destiny is determined and changed every 60 days by a ...
Publications · 18 Zitationen · DOI
This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractions and, hence, will result in biased estimates. Self-report measures, as well as analyses of retractions, are additionally affected by the absence of a consistent definition of misconduct. This problem of definition is addressed further as stemming from a lack of generally valid definitions both on the level of measuring misconduct and on the level of scientific practice itself. Because science is an innovative and ever-changing endeavor, the meaning of misbehavior is permanently shifting and frequently readdressed and renegotiated within the scientific community. Quantitative approaches (i.e., statistics) alone, thus, are hardly able to accurately portray this dynamic phenomenon. It is argued that more research on the different processes and definitions associated with misconduct and its detection and sanctions is needed. The existing quantitative approaches need to be supported by qualitative research better suited to address and uncover processes of negotiation and definition.
Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance—the road to theories of peer review
2024Science and Public Policy · 11 Zitationen · DOI
Abstract Peer review is an ubiquitous feature of science with three interrelated roles: first, as a mechanism to assess quality through expert judgement (process); second, to decide on the distribution of scarce resources, e.g. publication space (outcome); and, third, to self-govern science (context). This is poorly reflected in public and academic debates, where attention is focused on alleged deficits. Moving beyond a ‘deficit model’, we, first, divide the peer-review process into eight different practices, which, in combination, can make up a wide variety of peer-review procedures. Second, we claim that peer review not only provides evaluative decisions, but, more importantly, also provides the legitimacy for these decisions. Thus, an encompassing theoretical view of peer review should integrate process, outcome, and context. Such a view could start by theorizing peer review as a form of government, not unlike democracy, grown historically around concerns for legibility, responsibility, and responsiveness akin to the Mertonian norms.
Science Communication · 10 Zitationen · DOI
Retractions of journal articles exclude fraudulent or erroneous research from legitimate science and perform boundary work. Analyzing retractions from different disciplines and focusing on their apologetic aspects, we find that these apologies shift between openly addressing emotional, normative, and social themes and concealing them in a more scientific style of communication. Their boundary work remains highly ambivalent: They alternate between scientific and nonscientific forms of speaking, portray unstable patterns of control and coercion, and avoid drawing a boundary between legitimate and nonlegitimate science. In line with the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge, retractions thus leave boundary making to the future.
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · 9 Zitationen · DOI
Scholarly publishing lives on traditioned terminology that gives meaning to subjects such as authors, inhouse editors and external guest editors, artifacts such as articles, journals, special issues, and collected editions, or practices of acquisition, selection, and review. These subjects, artifacts, and practices ground the constitution of scholarly discourse. And yet, the meaning ascribed to each of these terms shifts, blurs, or is disguised as publishing culture shifts, which becomes manifest in new digital publishing technology, new forms of publishing management, and new forms of scholarly knowledge production. As a result, we may come to over- or underestimate changes in scholarly communication based on traditioned but shifting terminology. In this article, we discuss instances of scholarly publishing whose meaning shifted. We showcase the cultural shift that becomes manifest in the new, prolific guest editor. Though the term suggests an established subject, this editorial role crystallizes a new cultural setting of loosened discourse communities and temporal structures, a blurring of publishing genres and, ultimately, the foundations of academic knowledge production.
Peer review procedures as practice, decision, and governance – the road to theories of peer review
20217 Zitationen · DOI
Peer review is a ubiquitous feature of science and fulfills three interrelated roles. Firstly, it is a mechanism used to assess quality based on expert judgement (process). Secondly, it is a decision mechanism used to distribute scarce resources, such as publication space, funding, or employment (outcome). And thirdly, it is an instrument for self-governance in science (context). This is poorly reflected in public debates and, more importantly, in theoretical conceptions informing research about peer review. To move beyond such a “deficit model,” we provide two preliminary considerations that lay the foundation for a more encompassing theory of peer review. First, the peer-review process can be divided into at least eight different practices, which can in turn comprise a wide variety of specific peer-review procedures when combined. Second, peer review not only provides evaluative decisions, but, more importantly, also provides the legitimacy for these decisions. Thus, an encompassing view of peer review should integrate process, outcome, and context. We argue that such a view could start by theorizing peer review as a form of government, not unlike democratic government, which has grown historically around concerns for legibility, responsibility, and responsiveness (Rosanvallon) in a similar way to the Mertonian norms.
7 Zitationen · DOI
BMC Medical Education · 6 Zitationen · DOI
We find that CSPs improve working conditions for the duration of the program and provide protected time for doing research. After the programs, however, the career paths remain unstable, mainly due to a lack of target positions for clinician scientists. CSPs support the initial development of the clinician scientist' role, but not in a sustainable way, because the separation of research and patient care is stabilized on an institutional and systemic level. The tasks clinician scientists perform in research remain separate from patient care and teaching, thus, limiting their translational potential. In order to remain a clinician scientist within this differentiated system of university medicine, clinician scientists have to do a significant amount of extra work.
6 Zitationen · DOI
5 Zitationen · DOI
Peer review is primarily discussed in the literature with respect to its deficits, e.g. bias or inefficiency. In contrast, our synthesis asks why peer review is used ubiquitously and why it works despite such deficits. Historically, one answer lies in peer review not just providing expertise-based decisions on scientific resources (publication space, funding, jobs), but also providing an organized procedure to give these decisions legitimacy outside of science, e.g. in politics. The current situation is marked by a landscape of national and international funding and review activities that not only complement each other, but overlap, mirror, or rival each other. The current challenge rests in adapting peer review to different funding programmes within this landscape and without adding unnecessary burden on researchers and research organisations. To capture these aspects of scientific self-governance, we suggest an alternative conception of grant peer review that allows for thinking about peer review procedures as made up of different elements. Our key findings from such a conception are the following:- Peer review procedures have become more complex and formalized, as a result of being adapted to the different settings in publishing, funding, and hiring, on the national and international level. - The diversity and ubiquity of peer review rests upon its adaptability and scalability in reaching the ‘right’ decisions, i.e. based on scientific exellence, as well as in producing legitimate decisions, i.e. accepted by multiple stakeholders.- Peer review can be partitioned into eight elemental practices: four essential practices – postulating, consultative, decisive, and administrative – and another four – debating, presenting, observing, and moderating – that provide further combinatorial possibilities.- Through context-specific combinations of these elemental practices into a procedure, peer review generates legitimacy for judgements on scientific quality, inside and outside of science.- Peer review should not be seen as a 'measurement device' for scientific quality. Its diversity attests to the fact that issues of quality and legitimacy are intertwined and should be addressed openly.- Peer review procedures can act as laboratories for deliberation where the robustness and validity of research are equally relevant issues as participation, representation, accountability, or legibility; in effect, allowing for experiments and innovations in science policy.
dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy Recht und Management · 5 Zitationen · DOI
Dieser Beitrag widmet sich der fallvergleichenden Analyse des unübersichtlichen Evaluierungsphänomens Peer Review. Ausgehend von der Vielfalt des Peer Review als Gegenstand der Soziologie des Bewertens wird eine Untersuchungsperspektive entwickelt, die Peer Review als Entscheidungsmechanismus über knappe Ressourcen in seiner Verfahrensförmigkeit und Steuerungsfunktion einer empirisch vergleichenden Verfahrensanalyse zugänglich macht. Der Forschungsansatz kombiniert die praxeologischen (Stefan Hirschauer) und funktionalistischen Verfahrensanalysen (Niklas Luhmann) mit konzeptionellen Ansätzen aus der Soziologie des Bewertens und ermöglicht es, relevante Parameter zur Differenzierung und Typologisierung von Peer Review in der Wissenschaft zu bestimmen. Anhand dessen werden spezifische Tätigkeiten herausgearbeitet, die als elementare Bestandteile von Peer-Review-Verfahren identifizierbar sind. Unterschiedliche Peer-Review-Prozesse lassen sich damit anhand ihres Komplexitätsgrades bestimmen und im Spannungsverhältnis von Selbst- und Fremdsteuerung als Evaluationspolitik verorten.
5 Zitationen · DOI
The social sciences are a heterogeneous set of disciplines and sometimes reject the normative ideal of reproducibility altogether. This chapter extends the notion of reproducibility by not just including technical and epistemic but also social and normative aspects. From this starting point, empirical material from online discussions on social scientific blogs is analyzed where the debate about reproducibility spills over from social psychology to sociology and economics. These represent boundary work, negotiating the difference between the scientific and the nonscientific, and establish a distinction within the social sciences between technical and social aspects pertaining to reproducibility. Abbott suggested that the social sciences are based on nine fundamental debates, each spanning a continuum between two opposing positions: positivism and interpretivism, analysis and narration, behaviorism and culturalism, individualism and emergentism, realism and constructionism, contextualism and noncontextualism, choice and constraint, conflict and consensus, and transcendent and situated knowledge.
Journal of Responsible Innovation · 4 Zitationen · DOI
This perspective article explores the historical evolution of scandals related to academic integrity and their implications for the relationship between science and politics. We argue that there are three distinctive waves of scandalization since the postwar era: The first wave, starting in the 1970s, led to governance measures addressing public trust issues in science funding. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a second wave centered on research misconduct, prompting the establishment of boundary organizations such as the Office of Research Integrity. Since the 2010s, the third wave shifted focus to concerns such as Open Science and reproducibility, giving rise to a mainly intra-scientific moral entrepreneurship that unfolds not along one-time scandals anymore, but as part of a continuous crisis discourse. This current wave of reform movements is met with considerably less intra-scientific resistance than its predecessors and hence may inadvertently achieve regulatory goals surpassing previous political intentions.
4 Zitationen · DOI
Science, as a professional field, produces extreme forms of inequality.Most young and aspiring scientists who sucessfully complete their tertiaryeducation and go on to train as a PhD or doctoral student, never make it tobecoming a 'working scientist'. Most of those who do become postdocs,never make it to becoming a tenured professor. And most of those whobecome professors, never make it to becoming famous in their field,receiving prestigeous prices or even being highly cited. Careers in scienceare a trial of attrition, where only the best (or the luckiest?) prevail in thecompetition for careers. Scientists themselves tend to believe, generally, thatscience is a meritocracy, with the most productive being selected along thesecareer junctures. While there is no logical contradiction between meritocracyand competitivity and while many scientists believe that the meritocraticideal explains and justifies the high competitivity sufficiently, there is at leastsome ambivalence. Robert K. Merton (1973) noted the general ambivalencethat results from the interplay between the normative structure and thereward system in science. Since then it is not just the increased competitivityand the rising inequalities, that have changed; more importantely, it is theway visibility regimes have been changing over the last 20 years, mainly dueto digital communication, that has forced scientists to acknowledge theambivalence inherent in the meritocratic narrative. This essay is an attemptto explore this ambivalence, which, as of yet, has no ready-made description.A first way of describing this ambivalence may start from a series offirst-person accounts, empirical research results, and theoretical insights, thatcome from an emerging literature on the subject. Science as an “engine ofanxiety” (Espeland and Sauder, 2016; Fochler, Felt and Müller, 2016),“imposter syndrome” (Loveday, 2018; Grey, 2020; Keogh, 2020), “publish-or-perish” (Dalen and Henkens, 2012; Rijcke et al., 2016), or just“ambivalence” (Flink & Simon 2014) are some of the terms used to describea perceived shift in research cultures, where meritocracy and competitivityhave lost balance. This literature refers to processes of quantification(Desrosières, 1998), medialization (Weingart, 1999), projectification (Torka,2009, 2018; Franssen et al., 2018), or to significant shifts from blockfunding to temporary and third-party-funding. The result of theseoverlapping and sometimes mutually reinforcing processes is felt byindividual researchers as a source of anxiety, leading to feelings ofinadequacy, and, ultimately, to the belief that science may be more of alottery than a meritocracy (Loveday, 2018; Reinhart and Schendzielorz,2020). It is easy to dismiss these feelings as the reactions of those who havelost out in the competition for recognition. That would, however, bepremature for two reasons. First, these feelings may still be a reaction to ashift in research cultures, irrespective of whether this reaction is deemedadequate or not. Second, these feelings and beliefs have become a relevantforce in movements and policy initiatives that push for such diverse goals asmore reproducibility of research results, more gender equality and diversityin academia, or more careful use of quantitative indicators in the (self-)governance of science. To address these issues, my argument in this essay will ,first, describe the ambivalence in a current understanding of science both as competitiveand meritocratic, by relating it to changes in scientific visibility regimes.Second, I will briefly discuss the theoretical concepts that emerge from sucha description, mainly 'visibility', 'background emotions', and 'digital selves'.Third, I will lay out one strategy that highly visible individual scientistsseem to employ, to deal with the ambivalence of these new visibilityregimes. Finally, forth, I will discuss what the ensuing politics in sciencemight be, that result collectively from such individual strategies. Theargument will result in a paradox: The current visibility regime in science, resulting from digital communication and online platforms, leads toexcitement among scientists over the possibilities for attaininghypervisibility. Increasingly, however, the excitement of fashioning digitalselves is taken over by anxiety over being exposed to the possibility ofnegative, reputation threatening attention. Pardoxically, anticipating andpreventing such a possibility leads to even more vigorous fashioning ofdigital selves, for which the open science movement provides the mostsuitable policy narrative. In short: to protect themselves from the possiblenegative effects of visibility, scientists push for more visibility; whilebecoming fatalistic about their careers and about science policy.
Science and Public Policy · 4 Zitationen · DOI
Abstract While translational research (TR) aims at changing regulatory and organizational practices in the biomedical field, surprisingly little is known about how practitioners in the lab or the clinic think about translation. Addressing this gap, we present results from a Q-methodological study on the meanings and values associated with translation held by researchers, clinicians, and clinician scientists at two major German biomedical research institutions implementing TR strategies. We identify eight different collective understandings of translation, with respect to both where primary translational problems are located and what the most immediate and effective measures should be. Our findings suggest that there may not be a one-fits-all solution for improving translation and that general regulatory and organizational measures may be less effective than measures addressing specific audiences and their specific viewpoints. TR does, however, work well as an umbrella term in stimulating and orchestrating a productive interaction between various viewpoints, practices, and contexts.
Kooperationen7
Bestätigte Forscher↔Partner-Paare aus HU-FIS — Gold-Standard-Positive für das Matching.
Predatory publishing practices: Paper tigers or actual threats from evaluation systems?
university
Neue Wege in der Hochschulmedizin: Karriereentwicklung und Translation zwischen Autonomie und Kooperation (KeTAK) – Teilvorhaben CSP
other
Neue Wege in der Hochschulmedizin: Karriereentwicklung und Translation zwischen Autonomie und Kooperation (KeTAK) – Teilvorhaben CSP
university
Predatory publishing practices: Paper tigers or actual threats from evaluation systems?
research_institute
The Reconfiguration of Peers in Editorial Review (Disapeer)
university
The Reconfiguration of Peers in Editorial Review (Disapeer)
university
Predatory publishing practices: Paper tigers or actual threats from evaluation systems?
university
Stammdaten
Identität, Organisation und Kontakt aus HU-FIS.
- Name
- Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
- Titel
- Prof. Dr.
- Fakultät
- Philosophische Fakultät
- Institut
- Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft
- Arbeitsgruppe
- Wissenschaftsforschung mit Schwerpunkt Evaluationsforschung
- Telefon
- +49 30 2093-66616
- HU-FIS-Profil
- Quelle ↗
- Zuletzt gescrapt
- 26.4.2026, 01:10:52