Search

Using the rights contained in the Freedom of Information Act, we collected data on the teaching undertaken by staff at 52 UK universities. In contrast to workload modelling, our data reveals the extent of the variation in contact hours by institution, subject, and seniority. We provide for the first time an accurate measure of the teaching undertaken by staff on different contract types. One of our findings is that few universities employ full-time Teaching-only staff. It is some of the most prestigious universities that are leading the way in promoting this specialisation, with important implications for teaching and research.

Using the rights contained in the Freedom of Information Act, we collected data on the teaching undertaken by staff at 52 UK universities. In contrast to workload modelling, our data reveals the extent of the variation in contact hours by institution, subject, and seniority. We provide for the first time an accurate measure of the teaching undertaken by staff on different contract types. One of our findings is that few universities employ full-time Teaching-only staff. It is some of the most prestigious universities that are leading the way in promoting this specialisation, with important implications for teaching and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of science is to advance knowledge, primarily in two interlinked ways: circulating ideas, and defending or criticizing the ideas of others. Peer review acts as the gatekeeper to these mechanisms. Given the increasing concern surrounding the reproducibility of much published research (1), it is critical to understand whether peer review is intrinsically susceptible to failure, or whether other extrinsic factors are responsible that distort scientists' decisions. Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers' behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting. We further demonstrate that exercising some subjectivity in reviewer decisions, which serves to curb the herding process, can be beneficial for the scientific community in processing available information to estimate truth more accurately. By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved., Current incentive structures in science promote attempts to publish in prestigious journals, which frequently prioritize new, exciting findings. One consequence of this may be the emergence of fads and fashions [...]