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.
We’re engaged in science for the service of society, and we can only deliver on that mission if we use all available tools to assure the quality of our results.
Can I steal from myself? Maybe not. But do I actually own everything I’ve published? That’s where it starts to get tricky.