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.
Even when we try to control for quality, visibility and many other factors, it sometimes seems like the scientific work of men gets more attention than the work of women. Why should it be that way? How can it change?
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.
When the top orchestras in the world changed to gender-blind auditions, the number of women hired to play increased dramatically. Could that be possible in other kinds of workplaces, too?
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.
As my university was about to merge with a college in the same region, I began to sense that expectations were being lowered. I wrote this to encourage maintaining ambition.