Publish-or-Perish Culture Promotes Scientific Narcissism Narcissus by Caravaggio depicts Narcissus gazing at his own reflection (credit: Wikipedia) The motto for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is simple, elegant, and symmetrical: “Advancing science. Serving society.” What I love about these four words is that they convey a duel role of the association. But what if that ultimate goal of science was being chipped away, eroded, such that science begins to turn inward and become an end in itself. Hendrik van Dalen and Kène Henkens, researchers at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, report their findings in “Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey“ which appeared online in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology on April 20th. Population scientists find publishing in international refereed journals and being cited by other scholars the most rewarding element in their job. Like this: Like Loading...
Vers un droit de l'open science ? par Pierre Naegelen , Librarian sur Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III on 361 vues Le numérique bouleverse de fond en comble les principales dimensions indissociables de la diffusion des résultats de la recherche : la «chaîne éditoriale» classique, les coûts de publication, ... Le numérique bouleverse de fond en comble les principales dimensions indissociables de la diffusion des résultats de la recherche : la «chaîne éditoriale» classique, les coûts de publication, le partage des résultats et le droit d’auteur. Statistiques Vues Total des vues Vues sur SlideShare Vues externes Actions J'aime Téléchargements
Open access to research is inevitable, says Nature editor-in-chief | Science Open access to scientific research articles will "happen in the long run", according to the editor-in-chief of Nature, one of the world's premier scientific journals. Philip Campbell said that the experience for readers and researchers of having research freely available is "very compelling". But other academic publishers said that any large-scale transition to making research freely available had to take into account the value and investments they added to the scientific process. "My personal belief is that that's what's going to happen in the long run," said Campbell. Campbell, who was speaking on Friday at a briefing by academic publishers on open access at the Science Media Centre, related his recent experience of reading papers on psychology and psychiatric treatments. He added: "In the future, there will be text mining and tools … that need to get into that literature - I see that as a key part of the future and it's hard to see how that could work without open access."
Qui a peur de l’Open access ? | Projet AO Certainement pas Jean-Paul Saint-André, président de l’Université d’Angers, signataire de la tribune parue vendredi 15 mars dans le journal Le Monde. En juillet 2012, la Commission européenne a émis une recommandation relative à la publication en accès ouvert (c’est-à-dire gratuit pour le lecteur) des résultats de la recherche scientifique financée sur fonds publics. La Commission considère en effet qu’une telle démarche est nécessaire pour renforcer la visibilité de la recherche européenne à l’horizon 2020, en levant progressivement les obstacles qui se dressent entre le lecteur et l’article scientifique, après un éventuel embargo de six à douze mois. Cet avantage, l’Amérique latine, par exemple, l’a déjà saisi depuis une décennie en lançant de puissantes plateformes de revues en accès ouvert.
Mighty molten powder researchers publish paper in journal twice, months apart A group of French researchers liked their paper on the properties of molten tin so much they published it twice. In the same journal. Four months apart. The article, “Nitrogen spray atomization of molten tin metal: Powder morphology characteristics,” first appeared online in the January 2007 issue of the Journal of Materials Processing Technology. That one has been cited four times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. In May 2007, the same group, sans two authors, published a paper online in the JMPT (and in January 2008 in print) with the identical title. This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief as it is a duplicate of a paper that has already been published in J. Not much to say about this, although we’d love to hear a convincing explanation for how two completely identical papers from the same research team might make it into print in less time than it normally takes a single paper to be reviewed, accepted and published. Like this:
Math paper retracted because it “contains no scientific content” Have a seat, this one’s a howler. According to a retraction notice for “Computer application in mathematics,” published in Computers & Mathematics with Applications: This article has been retracted at the request of the Publisher, as the article contains no scientific content and was accepted because of an administrative error. Apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process. The entire abstract of the paper, which was submitted on April 15, 2009, accepted on July 20, 2009 and published in the January 2010 issue of the journal, reads: In this study, a computer application was used to solve a mathematical problem. Its conclusion is similarly opaque, but has the added bonus of being nonsensical: Computer magnification is a Universal computer phenomenon. Look, this “a problematic problem,” OK? Really. How on Earth does this stuff get past editors, peer reviewers, and publication staffs? We think we may have a clue. Update, 3 p.m.
Citation Cartel Journals Denied 2011 Impact Factor Time out, in the corner by Ken Wilcox via. Flickr Thomson Reuters released the 2011 edition of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) on Thursday, promoting increased coverage of regional journals and listing 526 new journals receiving their first journal impact factor. Far less conspicuous was a list of 51 journals that were suspended from this year’s report due to “anomalous citation patterns.” Anomalous citation patterns is typically a euphemism for systemic self-citation. Rampant self-citation is very easy to identify, and it can be achieved by several premeditated strategies. Since 2004, the JCR has been calculating self-citation rates, reporting their percentage and contribution to a journal’s impact factor calculation. This year, the list of 51 suspended journals included three of four titles that engaged in citation behavior resembling a citation cartel. Like this: Like Loading...
A first? Papers retracted for citation manipulation In what appears to be a first, two papers have been retracted for including citations designed to help another journal improve its impact factor rankings. The articles in The Scientific World Journal cited papers in Cell Transplantation, which in turn appears to have cited to a high degree other journals with shared board members. Here’s publisher Hindawi’s statement on the matter, which involved their publication The Scientific World Journal: Statement Regarding Two Cases of Citation ManipulationIt has been brought to the attention of The Scientific World Journal that two articles which were previously published in the journal (“A Showcase of Bench-to-Bedside Regenerative Medicine at the 2010 ASNTR” and “Regenerative Medicine for Neurological Disorders”) included a large number of references whose primary purpose was to manipulate the citation record. Hindawi publisher Paul Peters left this comment on both blog posts: Update, 5:30 p.m. Like this: Like Loading...
Viewpoint: The spectre of plagiarism haunting Europe 24 July 2012Last updated at 20:18 ET By Debora Weber-Wulff Professor of Media and Computing, University of Applied Sciences, Berlin Bucharest university says it cannot withdraw the PM's PhD without education ministry approval A spectre is haunting Europe, and this time it is the spectre of plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Some high-profile politicians have had to resign in the last 18 months - but the revelations are also shaking respected European universities. Many European countries, especially Germany, have long considered it unnecessary to give plagiarism more than a cursory look. Last February, a reviewer of German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's doctoral dissertation discovered and documented some plagiarised passages. When the papers pounced on this, zu Guttenberg denied any wrongdoing, calling the accusations "absurd". Within days, a group of people formed around a wiki they called GuttenPlag Wiki and proved him to be quite wrong. That was not the end of it.
For shame! Nature shills for traditional Chinese medicine : Respectful Insolence Nature is one of the oldest and most respected scientific journals around. It’s been around since 1869 and is said to be the world’s most cited journal. What makes Nature unusual these days is that it’s a general science journal. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, it publishes it all. The only other journal of its type that I can think of is Science, which also has a similar high impact factor. All of which makes it very, very disappointing to see Nature publish a supplement like this one, which is hot off the presses and entitled Traditional Asian Medicine. We are grateful for the support of our sponsors, Saishunkan Pharmaceutical Co., ltd. and the Kitasato University Oriental Medicine Research Center. Yes, you read it right. Saishunkan is a herbal medicine manufacturer which aims to help people make the most of their natural powers of healing and self-recovery. The company itself also has a message published in the supplement. Baduanjin is a form of Tai Chi. And:
Controversial chronic fatigue-virus paper retracted Andy Coghlan, reporter The journal Science has today fully retracted a controversial paper from 2009 reporting that a mouse leukaemia virus could be the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. Numerous attempts to replicate the findings have failed, and investigations revealing that the mouse virus was probably a contaminant of the original blood samples from patients led to the paper being partially retracted in September. Frustrated with the failure of most of the original authors to agree on the wording of a retraction, Science has decided to unilaterally retract the paper and released a statement explaining why. Alberts offers regret that so much time and resources have been spent unsuccessfully trying to replicate the paper. In a second development, the main author of the paper, Judy Mikovits, has lost a civil law case brought against her by her former employer, the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nevada, alleging that she appropriated key data after she was sacked.
Sick of Impact Factors I am sick of impact factors and so is science. The impact factor might have started out as a good idea, but its time has come and gone. Conceived by Eugene Garfield in the 1970s as a useful tool for research libraries to judge the relative merits of journals when allocating their subscription budgets, the impact factor is calculated annually as the mean number of citations to articles published in any given journal in the two preceding years. But the real problem started when impact factors began to be applied to papers and to people, a development that Garfield never anticipated. I can’t trace the precise origin of the growth but it has become a cancer that can no longer be ignored. The malady seems to particularly afflict researchers in science, technology and medicine who, astonishingly for a group that prizes its intelligence, have acquired a dependency on a valuation system that is grounded in falsity. The trick will be to crowd-source the task. It doesn’t have to be this way.
ONE Launches Reproducibility Initiative | EveryONE Hello there! If you enjoy the content on EveryONE, consider subscribing for future posts via email or RSS feed. PLOS ONE is pleased to announce a collaboration with Science Exchange and figshare in a groundbreaking new project: The Reproducibility Initiative. The initiative aims to help scientists validate their research findings by providing a mechanism for blind, independent replication by experts from Science Exchange’s network of more than 1,000 providers at core facilities and contract research organizations. Reproducibility, or the lack thereof, is a known issue in the scientific community, but few have the time or resources to fully address it. The Reproducibility Initiative is intended to encourage authors to validate their work by facilitating collaboration with an unbiased expert, and offering a Certificate of Reproducibility upon completion. The initiative brings together a number of scientific innovations to create a completely new research space.
News / Comments / Do you really want to publish in a high-retraction journal? With more than 24,000 scholarly journals in which some piece of relevant research may be published, a ranking scheme seems like a boon: one only needs to read articles from a small, high-ranking subset of journals and safely disregard the low-level chaff . At least this is how one might describe the development of journal ranks in the 1960s and 70s, when scores of new journals began to proliferate. Today, however, journal rank is used for much more than just filtering the paper deluge. Among the half-dozen or so ranking schemes, one monopolist has emerged which dictates journal rank: Thomson Reuters ' Impact Factor (IF). At many scientific institutions, funders and governing bodies are using the IF to rank the content of the journals as well: if it has been published in a high-ranking journal, it must be good science, or so the seemingly plausible argument goes. The R value for this correlation is 0.55, so pretty much in the range of the published values.