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.
Open Access
3 simple distinctions your government should eliminate from its research financing system
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.
Open Access
Do you make these 6 mistakes? A funding scheme that turns professors into typing monkeys
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.
Open Access
What Science — and the Gonzo Scientist — got wrong: open access will make research better
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.