This contribution is a crosspost from PLOS blogs which was published in Part I and Part II. The article is a cooperation within N², a network of the Helmholtz Juniors, Leibniz PhD Network and Max Planck PhDnet. With more than 14.000 doctoral researchers, it is the biggest network of doctoral researchers in Germany.
Open Science is a strange concept. Depending on who you speak to, it can be a set of scientific practices, a social justice issue, a complete fad, part of a political capitalist regime, or just a different but undefinable form of traditional science. This variety in thought is at once both a strength of Open Science, and its greatest weakness.
“Predatory publishing” describes the practice of pseudo scientific publishers that promise scientists the rapid publication of their studies. They purport to carry out a peer review but actually do not do such a thing and basically publish anything if the publication fee has been paid.
Science is the search for truth and knowledge. Originality and autonomy are its lifeblood. Science only becomes science by a bona fide treatment of data, facts, and intellectual property. 1) The basic rules of scientific work have to remain unchanged Relevance and reputation of science are critically determined by the adherence to immanent ethical principles.
Description The term “Smart Library” has recently been used more frequently, for labeling a vision of libraries of the future (examples see Fig. 1 and 2), in particular as part of the so called “Smart City” concept. This concept addresses the integration of digital processes and informational feedback loops in the public infrastructure and claims this integration to be a desirable state, in which cities become “smarter”, i.e.
Double blind peer reviewing, compared to open reviewing, is a great system to ensure quality in research that focuses on the content rather than the person(s) behind the research. However, the current review system for many academic publications is flawed. It hinders publication of timely and excellent research for three main reasons. The examples provided for mediocre reviewer suggestions are from my own experience.
What is the overarching problem with scientific impact? Scientific impact can be understood as the influence on other research, for example by providing confirmative or contradicting results, new research questions, or breakthrough methods.
Introduction Today a system that sets wrong incentives for the scientific community is prevailing that is relying on an outdated system for the communication of science through centralized publisher cartels. As a result, science in some fields is suffering from increasingly poor reproducibility. This bears the risk of loss of credibility among the public and increased scarcity of public funding (Ioannidis, 2005;
In a series of short analyses we took a closer look on the practice of (co-)authorship in various disciplines, using a Scopus database (see www.elephantinthelab.org). We found significant differences among the subject areas that we analyzed. While in nearly all disciplines the mere number of authors per article increased (2010-2016), the average number of authors per paper in these disciplines varies considerably.
Scientists must compete for limited funding as well as for academic positions and recognition. Many factors contribute to success, but Hirsch’s h -index puts the emphasis squarely on citations (Hirsch, 2005). In such a system, it is perceived that more citations should lead to more funds, promotions, job security, et cetera.
