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.
Is there a conflict between academic freedom and open access policies? Or do those policies potential serve to strengthen our freedom?
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.
The way we publish will continue changing, radically and disruptively. Some features from Wikipedia could inspire us in our quest for better ways to disseminate scientific results.
