Meet our Chair, Thed.

So, Thed, tell us a bit about yourself!​

Ah, where to begin? I’ve been at the Centre for Science & Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University for quite a while—since 1989, in fact.

​

But I didn’t exactly waltz into academia with a plan. I graduated as a political scientist in 1987, only to be greeted by an economic downturn. Job hunting wasn’t exactly a walk in the park, but then—lucky break!—CWTS took me on in 1989. Six years of contract work later, I finally landed a permanent position in 1995. That same year, I teamed up with my late colleague and mentor, Henk Moed, and we started tackling the mysteries of journal impact factors which is a topic that would influence much of my early research.

​

Fast forward a bit—I almost left CWTS in 1999 (career crossroads and all that), but I stuck around (and glad I did) and ended up leading CWTS’ services work, helping with research assessments in the Netherlands and beyond. In 2004, I completed my PhD, which focused on journal impact factors and the broader use of indicators in research policy and evaluation.

Then, around 2012, I pivoted to research assessment in the social sciences and humanities developing tools to support research assessment and helping to refine the national evaluation protocol in The Netherlands. I also took up the role of editor for Research Evaluation in 2012, which kept me busy until last year. These days, my focus is all about research evaluation, open science, and academic culture, with a heavy dose of research integrity. Oh, and as of September 1st, 2024, I’m officially Professor by Special Appointment at Leiden University, focusing on monitoring open science policies and practices. Quite the ride!

​

Alright, so you’re Chairing STI-ENID2025. Why you?​

Well, apparently, I’ve been around long enough to qualify!  Having worked in the field for decades, I’ve had a front row seat to many of its key development – including the merger of the STI conference series with the ENID community back in 2008/2009.  Over the years, I’ve built a pretty solid network of academic friends, policy folks, and research managers. My time as an Editor only reinforced those connections, giving me even more insight into the evolving landscape of research evaluation and science policy.

I also know this community inside and out—both STI-ENID, our friends over at the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), as well as the newcomers at MetaScience! This familiarity means I understand the debates, I know the challenges, and I understand the balancing act between innovation and tradition towards a better, global science.

​

Also, let’s be honest: Gemma said I’d make a good Chair, and who am I to argue with that?

​

What are you most excited about for STI-ENID2025?

The conversations! Honestly, I can’t wait for a vibrant conference packed with fresh ideas, lively discussions and thought-provoking insights!  I want to see fresh ideas, heated debates (the constructive kind, of course), and people tackling the big issues in research assessment, science policy and open science.  In particular, I’m excited to see how these big conversations of recent years play out during the event all under an emphasis on reconciliation.  Reconciliation is sorely needed to bring these debates, and people, together.

​

Last year’s STI-ENID Conference in Berlin had some truly memorable panel discussions—ones we hadn’t had in ages but really needed. I have no doubt that Bristol will deliver that same kind of energy!  I have heard that the city is known for it!

​

How important has the STI-ENID community been to your career?

Huge. The STI-ENID community sits at the crossroads of multiple academic disciplines, bringing together colleagues from diverse backgrounds, from quantitative and qualitative traditions, and from both research and policy. What makes this community special is that it’s not just about theory—it’s about applying academic insights to real-world issues in research assessment, research management, and science policy. Over the years, I’ve seen an increasing number of contributions from qualitative researchers, and the rise of panel discussions has made the conference even more dynamic. This evolving, open, and interdisciplinary space has given me (and many others) the chance to grow and develop professionally. It’s now a much more open and dynamic environment, and that’s been great for my own growth too.

​

What’s the future of STI-ENID research? Big opportunities? Major challenges?

Looking ahead, the future of our field lies in how we connect our academic work to the broader research ecosystem – within institutions, nationally and internationally.  We really need to ensure our work actually informs and improves research evaluation. The shifts we’re witnessing, from open science to the CoARA movement, challenge us to rethink how science is organised and assessed.  Our role as a community is to push boundaries, improve how science functions for society, and develop more balanced, nuanced approaches to evaluating research.

​

The challenge? One of the biggest challenges will be recognising and rewarding academic work in all its dimensions not just research.  Researchers also engage with teaching, leadership, societal engagement and in some cases (looking at you, medical researchers), even caring for patients. How do we recognise and reward all these contributions fairly?  These are critical questions our community must tackle.  We need smarter, more balanced evaluation systems that account for everything academics do.

​

Let’s talk about the conference theme. Why does it matter?

This year’s theme couldn’t be more relevant or needed right now. Ever since the CoARA agreement was published in 2022 we have seen intense debate in our community.  Some of the critiques in the CoARA document were fair, while others overlooked the more nuanced approaches our community has developed and continues to develop.  But at the same time peer review, peer review is not flawless and the CoARA document tends to take an uncritical stance on it.  Personally, I see research metrics and peer judgement as complementary rather than at odds with each other.  In an era of information overload, bibliometric analysis can help peer reviewers navigate the ever-expanding scholarly landscape.  That’s why the theme of reconciliation is so timely.  I hope this conference brings together voices from different sides of the debate, fostering real dialogue and mutual understanding.

​

Thinking of joining STI-ENID2025? Any advice?

For first timers, don’t hesitate—just sign up and come! The STI-ENID Community is known for its genuinely supportive ethos.  You will be welcomed into a community that thrives on exchanging ideas and has been pushing the field forward for over 29 years!  You’ll also leave with new ideas, fresh perspectives, and probably a few new academic friends. 

​

If you are a returning participant, prepare to be surprised. We’ve got a great organising team, some fantastic content in the works, and—bonus—Bristol! I don’t know the city well myself, but that just adds to the adventure.

​

Final thoughts?

STI-ENID2025 is going to be a fantastic conference, and I can’t wait to see where the discussions take us. So, if you’re on the fence about attending, just go for it—you won’t regret it. And if you see me wandering around Bristol looking slightly lost, feel free to point me in the right direction. 

 

Together we can work it out – reconciliation!