The “la Caixa” Foundation has been experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted decision-making geared toward alleviating the administrative burden associated with the evaluation pipeline of its flagship funding program, piloting an algorithm to detect immature project proposals before they reach the peer review stage, and suggest their removal from the selection process to a human overseer. In this article, we explore existing uses of AI by publishers and research funding organizations to automate their selection pipelines, in addition to analyzing the conditions under which the focal case corresponds to a responsible use of AI and the extent to which these conditions are met by the current implementation, highlighting challenges and areas of improvement.

Blind review is ubiquitous in contemporary science, but there is no consensus among stakeholders and researchers about when or how much or why blind review should be done. In this essay, we explain why blinding enhances the impartiality and credibility of science while also defending a norm according to which blind review is a baseline presumption in scientific peer review.

The pressure to distinguish high quality from lower quality law journals is intensifying. To contribute to this debate, citation-based and peer review-based ranking of law journals are paralleled in the paper, using qualitative and quantitative analysis. It is found that all law journals that are considered as journals of the highest quality by legal experts are also ranked highly in Web of Science (WoS) and that 40% of the law journals categorised as ‘internationally leading’ by the peers are not listed in WoS. This paper explores what the editors of some of the internationally leading law journals that are not listed in the WoS think about applying to be listed in it. The paper offers data to support the contention that legal scholarship is characterised by regionalism in academic publishing and citation patterns. It is submitted that there is no perfect indicator of quality, and that no evaluation system will ever convince every legal scholar in the world of its value. WoS could be adopted as a rigorous and internationally recognised index for law journals only if it were aligned more closely with the Leiden Manifesto.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency of international concern. This pandemic poses a challenge to research and scientific community. In this study, we developed and tested content reliability and content validity of a questionnaire designed for evaluating the readiness and willingness of researchers to participate in virology research in Jordan. The survey was hosted on an online platform, and the link was emailed. A total of 332 participants from universities across Jordan completed the survey. For factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with parallel analysis and scree plots were conducted to evaluate the most suitable model for the data. The result of the EFA suggested a 5-factor model would fit the survey. Data showed that the lowest means were for researchers’ readiness to conduct virology research and readiness for virology research with means of 2.07 and 2.95, respectively. Moreover, years of experience and speciality had a significant effect on the readiness and willingness of virology research in Jordan. In conclusion, readiness for research and researchers should be addressed and authorities should pay attention to these shortcomings in virology research.

A procedure is described for evaluating poultry and egg research projects. A peer review questionnaire and benefit-cost analysis are utilized incorporating elasticities from an econometric model for poultry and eggs. Production, cost, and price changes are used to calculate changes in producer surplus and net economic surplus for a set of privately funded publicly conducted research projects.

This study examines the valuation of research as intangible capital in agriculture using Tobin's q theory. The market value of public research capital is estimated to be 8.6 times higher than conventional assets. Private research capital is valued 5.2 times higher than conventional assets. The estimated valuation multiplier for all farm assets dropped 1/3 over the last decade. In recent years the valuation multiplier has dropped below a dollar, which indicates the market is undervaluing farm assets.