The European Commission (EC) has sought feedback from the research community base in the form of a survey for its Horizon Europe research plan. It can be found in https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/659c5eea-5f1d-341b-482e-92b53222f619 The overall strategy is already decided, in terms of basic themes etc, and the questions in the survey are already quite specific. Here is a general comment on EU research as funded by the EC. It relates to fundamental research as opposed to directed or applied. The framework programs (as all EC endeavors) are meant to complement national efforts and not duplicate them (as a fundamental mandate of relevant treaties). Blue-skies fundamental research is left for national programs, and is therefore not EC funded, except for the Marie Curie program with the training and mobility argument, and the European Research Council (ERC) with the excellence argument. The latter is essentially an award progra
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for avoiding the use of journal impact factors in evaluations of scientists and their contributions. I very much agree with the idea, and so do the many signatories of the declaration, both personal and institutional. Impact-factor fascination syndrome (IFFS, the very thing DORA wants to counter) is however spreading and thriving in the research community. I would propose to extend the spirit of DORA to scientific meetings: Speakers in adhering research meetings should avoid quoting journal names in what they show . Nowadays, the names of one or two authors and the year should suffice to find any paper, if there is no arXiv reference for instance. It sounds sensible that when speakers describe their work, they show the reference of where to find the relevant publication. But we all know that showing references to high-impact-factor journals is used to impress the audience (not to mention journal covers), and I can