Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Il y a 2 ans, le mathématicien Tim Gowers lançait la pétition du Cost of Knowledge, invitant les chercheurs à ne plus participer aux comités éditoriaux de revues publiées chez Elsevier, quand dans le même temps le coût des abonnements à ces revues... Via Stéphane Cottin 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
"Universities are drowning in digital information. It's time senior leaders made openness – and its consequences – their concern.
Universities are digital machines these days. But many of the decisions that have to be made as a result are not technical at all. They are about the nature of research and its public benefits, about how learning and teaching takes place, and how we confront difficult ethical issues. Strategic choices that are made now will have significant implications for the ways in which knowledge will be created and shared in the future..." Via Elizabeth E Charles
Scoop.it!
Open Is Not Enough : Grey Literature in Institutional Repositories : « The paper contributes to the discussion on the place of grey literature in institutional repositories and, vice versa, on the relevance of open archives for grey ...
Scoop.it!
Who has never been in the situation that he had a set of data where some of them just didn’t seem to fit. A simple adjusting of the numbers or omitting of strange ones could solve the problem. Or so you would think. I certainly have been in such a situation more than once, and looking back, I am glad that I left the data unchanged. At least in one occasion my “petty” preformed theory proved to be wrong and the ‘strange data’ I had found were corresponding very well with another concept that I hadn’t thought of at the time.[...]
In this article I propose that for almost all of the instances where scientific misconduct was found, open access to articles AND raw data would have either prevented the fraud altogether, or at the very least would have caused them to be exposed much more rapidly than has been the case in the current situation.[...]
To state it more simply: the more people there are who can take a look at complete data, the more likely it is that inconsistencies will be quickly spotted.[...]
CONCLUSION. Implementation of open access inclusive of full access to raw research data would minimize the possibilities for scientific fraud... Via MyScienceWork, Terheck
Roberto Insolia's curator insight,
December 12, 2012 10:21 AM
L'open access e la pubblicazione dei dati grezzi sono presentati come una possibile soluzione sia alla cattiva condotta nella ricerca che alla scadente qualità della produzione scientifica più recente. Diverse sono le forme di "Bad Science". Da parte dell'autore, possiamo avere la pubblicazione selettiva (con omissione dei dati non conformi alla propria teoria), la non riproducibilità e la manipolazione dei dati, fino alla loro completa fabbricazione. Dal punto di vista degli editori, possiamo avere sia i bias di pubblicazione (preferenziale pubblicazione dei risultati positivi o dei dati che confermano teorie pre-esistenti), che una peer-review poco corretta. |
Scoop.it!
Randy Schekman, le dernier prix Nobel de Médecine, a récemment déclaré qu'il boycotterait les plus grandes revues scientifiques qu'il accuse de fausser le processus scientifique.
Scoop.it!
This post is from Jan Velterop, a long-time science publisher, who is one of earliest proponents of "open access" publishing. The following is actually a message he posted to an open access mailing list, which Mike Taylor republished. We asked if we, too, could republish it, and Velterop told us (as we tell people who ask us) that the work should be considered in the public domain, and to do what we want with it.
Click headline to read more-- Via Chuck Sherwood, Former Senior Associate, TeleDimensions, Inc
Scoop.it!
Open Evaluation will improve science. Researchers constantly evaluate each other -- when we submit our results for publication, when we apply for grants, and when we apply for new jobs or promotions. Peer evaluation is our quality assurance strategy.
|
