A study of the state of research in Norway over the past 10 years concludes that incentives to increase quantity don’t necessarily harm quality — but they don’t help it, either.
Open access and internationalization are the focus of Part 3 of my series on the Norwegian “payment for publication” scheme.
The Norwegian “payment for publication” scheme treats journals and anthologies differently and does not acknowledge the value of writing textbooks or editing collections. In Part 2 of this series, I argue for correcting these features of the system.
Here in Part 1 of a 3-part series on the Norwegian “payment for publication” policy, I argue that the two-tier quality system should be dropped.
The “sting” operation published in Science Magazine claims to highlight corruption in the open access model, but it’s actually about problems with peer review — even if Science claims otherwise.
Three problems with scientific publications are presented here: retraction rates are rising, research is increasingly unreproducible and journals are making decisions designed to increase their visibility.
Peer evaluation is the most important tool for quality control in research, but it needs to be better. Here are thirteen suggestions to include in a new system of Open Evaluation.