Vous avez lu un livre, vous l'avez adoré et vous avez envie de le faire découvrir à d'autres ? Glissez-le dans une boîte à livres et prenez-en un autre.
Unless you have an academic subscription, it's difficult to keep up with published research papers and with researchers' output. Prof Anne-Wil Harzing provides the Publish or Perish academic search engine for free. It searches Google Scholar, OpenAlex, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The app is downloadable from https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
The academic world quickly responded to the covid-19 situation, and produced a staggering amount of research publications. Whilst nobody would disagree that we need organized collaborative research efforts to study disease prevention, management and treatment, the reality is that large swathes of research (including pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles) of covid-19 is of poor quality, and this mirrors the quality of medical research in general [1,2]. For example, more than 230 prediction models have been published for the diagnosis of covid-19 infection or for predicting prognosis in infected patients [3].
En France, l’Institut National de l’Audiovisuel (INA) et la Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF) sont en charge de l’archivage du “web français”, au titre du dépôt légal élargi aux documents numériques depuis la loi 1er août 2006 relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information (DADVSI). Le dépôt légal du … Continuer la lecture de Pourquoi archiver le web ? Les missions de l’IIPC →
The map shows 3654681 publications. The classification underlying the map is based on 19 million PubMed publications from 1995 onwards and their citation relations (NIH Open Citation Collection). Top level nodes (large, partly transparant nodes) represent research disciplines.
Our business is built around helping people implement good ideas, not licencing them. Here are some tools & checklists that you are welcome to use. The 5Di user-centered design model: User-centered design is the only way you will be able to shift from educational rituals to learning design, and make a difference to the experience…
Pour les fouilleurs du Web et les curieux, une compil' des principaux moteurs de recherche mise à jour. #veille #searchengine #recherchedoc #en1coupdoeil…
Wikimedica est une plateforme libre, fiable, innovante et collaborative, qui facilite le transfert des connaissances essentielles dans un système de santé au service de tous.
New South Wales has recently introduced a new framework to support information literacy. SCIS speaks to Department of Education Library Coordinator Carmel Grimmett about how this framework may prove useful for library staff across the country.
TransACTION! is a project on Media and Learning Design for European Higher Education, it brings together partners from Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Belgium who are involved in activities and projects in the field of media based learning.
So far, the year 2022 has certainly looked like a deflating technology bubble. After a decade of rising market caps, stocks for formerly hot “tech” companies fell far below their recent highs. By September 2022, exercise equipment maker Peloton was down 90 percent from a year before; ridesharing company Lyft had fallen 70 percent; videoconferencing…
But there are many problems with higher education becoming the primary locus of basic and applied research, and thus the main source of new ideas to be commercialized. First, there is far too much emphasis placed on publishing papers and not enough on developing new technologies up to the point at which companies can commercialize them. There are even too many papers for researchers to read, causing publication counts or dubious indices like the h-index to become mostly useless. Counting the number of publications or calculating h-factors has created an environment of quantity over quality, in which the status of the submitter often determines the outcome. Papers with more than one hundred authors are not uncommon. Some estimates say half of all peer-reviewed articles are not read by anyone other than the author, journal editor, and reviewers.
This publish-or-perish culture has also encouraged researchers to game the system, which undermines the usefulness of publication and citation counts. This is an example of Goodhart’s law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” For science and research conducted at universities, a publication list determines every hire, grant application, promotion case, and salary review, and thousands of today’s professors have much higher h-indices than did Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman.
A similar process of routinization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Grant applications are more rigidly structured, elaborate, and hype-ridden, as are requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves heaps of paperwork. Overall, there has been an enormous increase in the amount of paperwork university researchers must do. These professionalizing tendencies are an all but inevitable consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization makes it easier to manage large numbers of papers, applications, and people. But a lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops, and outsiders face barriers to entry at every turn. No wonder science and innovation have slowed.
One scientist argued in Nature that scientists must publish less, or good research will be swamped by the ever-increasing volume of poor work. A recent study found that more papers impedes the rise of new ideas. Another problem is that mainstream scientific leaders increasingly accept that large bodies of published research are unreliable in almost every field, including cancer research, yet published papers that fail a replication experiment are often cited more than those that pass one because they make bolder claims. Behind this unreliability is a destructive feedback loop between the production of poor quality science, the responsibility to cite previous work, and the compulsion to publish.
Another result of an obsession with papers is more journals. If you want more papers, you need more journals, and as a result we certainly have more journals. The number of worldwide researchers, journals, and journal articles has risen, increasing by about 60 percent just in the thirteen years between 1982 and 1995, followed by another 20 percent increase in the number of journals between 2002 and 2014. And it is not just more low-tier journals, the number of high-tier journals is also growing. The number of journals published by the Association of Computing Machinery has reached fifty-nine, while the number published by the American Chemical Society has hit thirty-nine; the Society of Mechanical Engineers, thirty-five; the Physical Society, fifteen; and the Medical Association, thirteen. The number of transactions, journals, and magazines published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers exceeds two hundred, and the number published by Nature has reached 157 (up from one, fifty years ago), with each journal representing a different specialty.
Universities encourage this hyper-specialization. One recent paper analyzed the evaluation decisions for more than forty thousand academics. It found that scholars are penalized in their careers because gatekeepers in scientific disciplines may perceive multidisciplinary scientists as threats to the distinctiveness and knowledge domain of individual disciplines. Interestingly, the highest performers among multidisciplinary candidates are the ones who are most penalized. Those who are brilliant are also those who may bring disruption to a discipline, and hence are penalized more than those with a middling track.
Can we expect hyper-specialized researchers to develop something of use to society? Doing so requires the integration of many types of different information, and when it is spread across so many journals, who could possibly do this? Even if we ignore the more prosaic tasks of manufacturing, marketing, and accounting, just finding a new concept is difficult for hyper-specialized researchers.
To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question. Certainly everyone has heard of the recent private acquisition of Twitter. Many people say they will leave the platform and some have moved to the federated Mastodon system.
There are plenty of career opportunities, but also a lot of competition—so you’ll need to distinguish yourself. Here's how to make a case for your curiosity and its impact.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
