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.
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.
A prestigious journal refused to publish new knowledge about whale migration because the data came from a registry related to whale hunting. How could we handle this tension between ethics and research?
