ScienceGeist

Objective To conduct a time-cost analysis of formatting in scientific publishing. Design International, cross-sectional study (one-time survey). Setting Internet-based self-report survey, live between September 2018 and January 2019. Participants Anyone working in research, science, or academia and who submitted at least one peer-reviewed manuscript for consideration for publication in 2017. Completed surveys were available for 372 participants from 41 countries (60% of respondents were from Canada). Main outcome measure Time (hours) and cost (wage per hour x time) associated with formatting a research paper for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Results The median annual income category was US$61,000-80,999, and the median number of publications formatted per year was four. Manuscripts required a median of two attempts before they were accepted for publication. The median formatting time was 14 hours per manuscript, or 52 hours per person, per year. This resulted in a median calculated cost of US$477 per manuscript or US$1,908 per person, per year. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the cost of manuscript formatting in scientific publishing. Our results suggest that scientific formatting represents a loss of 52 hours, costing the equivalent of US$1,908 per researcher per year. These results identify the hidden and pernicious price associated with scientific publishing and provide evidence to advocate for the elimination of strict formatting guidelines, at least prior to acceptance.

A new report summarises the results of a survey of European research funders on Open Access and Research Data policies, commissioned by SPARC Europe.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report highlights the urgency of prioritizing timely, ambitious and coordinated action to address unprecedented and enduring changes in the ocean and cryosphere.

Transparent evaluations of FAIRness are increasingly required by a wide range of stakeholders, from scientists to publishers, funding agencies and policy makers. We propose a scalable, automatable framework to evaluate digital resources that encompasses measurable indicators, open source tools, and participation guidelines, which come together to accommodate domain relevant community-defined FAIR assessments. The components of the framework are: (1) Maturity Indicators - community-authored specifications that delimit a specific automatically-measurable FAIR behavior; (2) Compliance Tests - small Web apps that test digital resources against individual Maturity Indicators; and (3) the Evaluator, a Web application that registers, assembles, and applies community-relevant sets of Compliance Tests against a digital resource, and provides a detailed report about what a machine "sees" when it visits that resource. We discuss the technical and social considerations of FAIR assessments, and how this translates to our community-driven infrastructure. We then illustrate how the output of the Evaluator tool can serve as a roadmap to assist data stewards to incrementally and realistically improve the FAIRness of their resources.

 The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) discuss what you should consider when you are asked to peer review a manuscript.

GENDERACTION developed specific “criteria of good practice” which can be used to assess national ERA Roadmaps and individual gender equality policies.

The Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences SAHS proposes the establishment of a Platinum Open Access Fund. The funding would allow to flip and operate 15-20 scientific journals in the humanities and social sciences that are not depending on article processing charges and that are immediately open for everyone.

Universities are increasingly evaluated, both internally and externally on the basis of their outputs. Often these are converted to simple, and frequently contested, rankings based on quantitative analysis of those outputs. These rankings can have substantial implications for student and staff recruitment, research income and perceived prestige of a university. Both internal and external analyses usually rely on a single data source to define the set of outputs assigned to a specific university.

Reflecting on historical analyses of the developments in British science policy over the last 100 years to identify insights, trends, and implications for policymakers today.

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. This Community Page article presents a publicly available database that provides standardized information on multiple citation indicators and a composite thereof, annotating each author according to his/her main scientific field(s).

The primary goal of research is to advance knowledge. For that knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous and transparent at all stages of design, execution and reporting. The authors developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKP) with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behavior that leads to trustworthy research. 

For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall.

The release in September 2018 of Plan S has led many small and society publishers to examine their business models, and in particular ways to transform their journals from hybrids into pure Open Access (OA) titles. This paper explores one means by which a society publisher might transform.

Article proposes a new inwardness indicator able to gauge the degree of scientific self-referentiality of a country. A comparative analysis of the trends for the G10 countries in the years 2000-2016 reveals a net increase of the Italian inwardness.

This paper is rather a profound hermeneutic enunciation putting into question our present understanding of psychopathy. It further articulates, in complement, a novel theoretical and methodological conceptualisation for a hermeneutic psychological science.

Study investigated 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of scientific journals' Instructions to Authors.

Translating scientific research and findings into policy discussion often requires an understanding of the institutional complexities of policy processes. This study developed a set of metrics to examine how researchers have undertaken that challenge.

 With this compendium, the Hamburg Open Science Programme aims to provide practical support for practitioners of open science and to help remove existing obstacles on the way to greater transparency in science.

As AI technology develops rapidly, it is widely recognized that ethical guidelines are required for safe and fair implementation in society. But is it possible to agree on what is 'ethical AI'? A detailed analysis of 84 AI ethics reports around the world, from national and international organizations, companies and institutes, explores this question, finding a convergence around core principles but substantial divergence on practical implementation.

Article: Teaching Research Data Management for Students

This paper provides an introduction to open science and related reforms in the form of an annotated reading list of seven peer-reviewed articles.

A key dimension of our current era is Big Data, the rapid rise in produced data and information; a key frustration is that we are nonetheless living in an age of ignorance, as the real knowledge and understanding of people does not seem to be substantially increasing. This development has critical consequences.

The role of climate change (CC) contrarians is neglected in climate change communication studies. Here the authors used a data-driven approach to identify CC contrarians and CC scientists and found that CC scientists have much higher citation impact than those for contrarians but lower media visibility.

A case study discussing and analysing the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review.

![][1] ILLUSTRATION: DAVIDE BONAZZI/SALZMANART Many government data, such as sensitive information on individuals' taxes, income, employment, or health, are available only to accredited users within a secure computing environment. Though they can be cumbersome to access, such microdata can allow researchers to pursue questions that could not be addressed with only public data ([ 1 ][2]). However, researchers using confidential data are inexorably challenged with regard to research reproducibility ([ 2 ][3]). Empirical results cannot be easily reproduced by peers and journal referees, as access to the underpinning data are restricted. We describe an approach that allows researchers who analyze confidential data to signal the reproducibility of their research. It relies on a certification process conducted by a specialized agency accredited by the confidential-data producers and which can guarantee that the code and the data used by a researcher indeed produce the results reported in a scientific paper. In general, research is said to be reproducible if the researchers provide all the resources such as computer code, data, and documentation required to obtain published results ([ 3 ][4], [ 4 ][5]). Reproducibility has the potential to serve as a minimum standard for judging scientific claims ([ 5 ][6], [ 6 ][7]). Recent promising initiatives to facilitate reproducible research include new research environments (e.g., Code Ocean, Popper convention, Whole Tale), workflow systems (e.g., Kepler, Kurator), and dissemination platforms or data repositories (e.g., DataHub, Dataverse, openICPSR, IEEE DataPort, Mendeley). The journal BioStatistics introduced a process in which an editorial board member aims to reproduce the results in a new submission using the code and data provided by the authors ([ 7 ][8]). Other examples of internal reproducibility assessments include the Applications and Case Studies of the Journal of the American Statistical Association ([ 8 ][9]) or the artifact evaluation process of the Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming (PPoPP) conferences. Alternatively, the reproducibility review can be outsourced to a third party, as in the partnership between the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) and the Odum Institute ([ 9 ][10]). Yet, despite the proliferation of such efforts, current computational research does not always comply with the most basic principles of reproducibility ([ 10 ][11], [ 11 ][12]). Use of confidential data are often mentioned as a major impediment ([ 12 ][13]). Since the end of the 1970s, with the development of computers and a growing concern about privacy protection, legal frameworks regarding access to sensitive personal information have been reinforced in most countries. Though initially only direct identification (e.g., name, address, and social security number) was considered for defining confidentiality, the perimeter has been gradually enlarged to indirect identification that points to the use of multiple variables that potentially lead to a risk of identification ([ 6 ][7]). Given the extension of the legal spectrum of confidential data, a growing fraction of data used in science can fall into this category. One possible approach to engaging in reproducible research with confidential data is to generate synthetic data by applying an information-preserving but anonymizing transformation to the initial data ([ 13 ][14]). By contrast, all Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals request that whenever data cannot be accessed by other researchers, a public dataset that can be used to validate the original conclusions must be provided. An alternative approach relies on improving the accessibility of restricted data for researchers-for example, the research passport proposed by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, or the DataTags framework developed within Dataverse and the multidisciplinary Privacy Tools Project. The natural tension between confidentiality and reproducibility could be alleviated by using a third-party certification agency to formally test whether the results in the tables and figures of a given scientific article can be reproduced from the computer code and the confidential data used by the researcher. A first attempt to implement such an external certification process is under way in France. Explicitly designed to deal with confidential data, the reproducibility assessment, like the original analysis, is conducted within a restricted-access data environment. In France, the Centre d'Accès Sécurisé aux Données (CASD) is a public research infrastructure that allows users to access and work with government confidential data under secured conditions. This center currently provides access to data from the French Statistical Institute and the French Ministries for Finance, Justice, Education, Labor, and Agriculture, as well as Social Security contributions and health data. The application process for researchers to get access to the CASD datasets takes around 6 months and requires a presentation of the research project before the French Statistical Secrecy Committee, which gathers data producers. Once the accreditation is granted, CASD creates a virtual machine allowing the researcher to access the specific source datasets required for the project, as well as the required statistical software. Remote access to the virtual machine is made possible thanks to a specific piece of hardware provided by CASD, which includes a fingerprint biometric reader. Since the inception of CASD in 2010, the question of allowing journal referees to get access to data used by researchers has been heavily debated. However, both the legal framework and the technical restrictions made intermittent and short-period access for referees difficult. The Certification Agency for Scientific Code and Data (cascad, [www.cascad.tech][15]) is a not-for-profit certification agency created by academics (all coauthors of this paper) with the support of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, foundations, universities, and local governments. During initial meetings between cascad and CASD teams, they quickly understood the mutual benefit of joining forces to design a reproducibility certification process for confidential data. Thanks to this partnership, cascad was granted a permanent accreditation by the French Statistical Secrecy Committee to all 280 datasets available on CASD. This first-of-its-kind accreditation was motivated by the fact that cascad was providing a solution to the long-recognized problem of the lack of reproducibility of research based on confidential data. Also key for the approval was that the whole certification process remains within the CASD environment and that no data can ever be downloaded. When an author requests a cascad certification for a paper, he or she needs to provide the paper, the computer code used in the analysis, and any additional information (software version, readme files, etc.) required to reproduce the results. Then, a reproducibility reviewer, who is a full-time cascad employee specialized in the software used by the author, accesses a CASD virtual machine that is a clone of the one used by the author. It includes a copy of the source datasets and of the author's computer code, as well as all software required to run the code. The reviewer executes the code, compares the output with the results displayed in the tables and figures of the paper, and lists any potential discrepancies in an execution report. In practice, such discrepancies can arise because of typos in the manuscript, numerical convergence issues, or differences in software package versions. This execution report is transferred to a cascad reproducibility editor, a senior researcher specialized in the author's research field, who ultimately decides on the reproducibility of the article. Lastly, a reproducibility certificate is sent to the author and is stored in the cascad database. An example of a study recently certified by cascad is one that proposes a direct measure of tax-filing inefficiency in French cohabiting couples ([ 14 ][16]). The analysis relies on the Echantillon Démographique Permanent , an administrative dataset only available through CASD that combines information from birth, death, and marriage registers; electoral registers; censuses; tax returns; and pay slips. All the tables and figures of the paper have been reproduced by a cascad reproducibility reviewer from the source datasets, and Python scripts provided by the authors [see certificate ([ 15 ][17])]. While complying with strict data confidentiality rules, the cascad-CASD partnership offers several advantages: (i) signal research reproducibility when data are confidential. The author can transfer the reproducibility certificate to an academic journal when submitting a new manuscript, similar to the reproducibility badges introduced by the Association for Computing Machinery; (ii) outsource reproducibility review. External certification enriches the peer review process, but this extra step is outsourced by academic journals, as in the AJPS-Odum partnership. The staff of the certification agency is specialized and has more time than editorial teams at academic journals; (iii) provide economies of scale to the research community. This model connects a data-provision organization (CASD, a single entry point to a large number of data producers) and a reproducibility certification organization (cascad, a single entry point to a large number of journals and researchers). The cascad-CASD model is a generalization of the standard reproducibility process in which a single researcher goes through the whole reproducibility process on his or her own, obtaining similar data and redoing the analysis; (iv) speed up reproducibility review. Any skeptical researcher can still seek to reproduce the work himself or herself, but unlike researchers who need to go through a 6-month application process, cascad reviewers benefit from a fast-track process (2 days) to access any data necessary to conduct the reproducibility assessment. The certification process is supposed to be completed within 2 weeks; (v) ease replication and robustness tests. Once certification is completed, the computer code and detailed information about the source datasets (metadata) can be publicly posted on the Zenodo archive and used to facilitate additional replication and robustness analyses. Undoubtedly, the biggest challenge for any new certification service is to build trust. To build trust and increase credibility, cascad implements a transparent and detailed certification process. For each certification, all the actions, interactions, and problems that occurred during the process are recorded. Furthermore, all operations carried out within the virtual machine by the reviewer are recorded and traceable. Once the reviewing process is over, the environment is closed, sealed, and archived. The recorded operations and output can be referenced externally and shared with journal editors after proper accreditation. Trust by data producers makes the process feasible, and trust by academic journals makes the process useful and worthwhile. Cascad has the trust of data producers at CASD, who want their data to be useful to society and accessible for reproducibility. Now cascad needs to convince researchers and journals to value its certificates. Overall, the experience with cascad thus far suggests that preserving confidentiality and privacy does not necessarily have to lead to opaque and nonreproducible research. 1. [↵][18]1. L. Einav, 2. J. Levin , Science 346, 1243089 (2014). [OpenUrl][19][Abstract/FREE Full Text][20] 2. [↵][21]1. C. Lagoze, 2. L. Vilhuber , Chance 30, 68 (2017). [OpenUrl][22] 3. [↵][23]1. A. Antoniadis, 2. G. Oppenheim 1. J. B. Buckheit, 2. D. L. Donoho , in Wavelets and Statistics, A. Antoniadis, G. Oppenheim, Eds., Lecture Notes in Statistics (Springer, New York, 1995), vol. 103, pp. 55-81. [OpenUrl][24] 4. [↵][25]1. V. Stodden et al ., Science 354, 1240 (2016). [OpenUrl][26][Abstract/FREE Full Text][27] 5. [↵][28]1. G. Christensen, 2. E. Miguel , J. Econ. Lit. 56, 920 (2018). [OpenUrl][29] 6. [↵][30]1. Y.-A. de Montjoye et al ., Sci. Data 5, 180286 (2018). [OpenUrl][31] 7. [↵][32]1. R. D. Peng , Science 334, 1226 (2011). [OpenUrl][33][Abstract/FREE Full Text][34] 8. [↵][35]1. M. Fuentes , Amstat News (2016); . 9. [↵][36]1. T.-M. Christian, 2. S. Lafferty-Hess, 3. W. G. Jacoby, 4. T. Carsey , Int. J. Digit. Curation 13, 114 (2018). [OpenUrl][37] 10. [↵][38]1. A. C. Chang, 2. P. Li , Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 60 (2017). [OpenUrl][39] 11. [↵][40]1. V. Stodden, 2. J. Seiler, 3. Z. Ma , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 2584 (2018). [OpenUrl][41][Abstract/FREE Full Text][42] 12. [↵][43]1. J. K. Harris et al ., PLOS ONE 13, e0202447 (2018). [OpenUrl][44] 13. [↵][45]1. B. E. Shepherd, 2. M. Blevins Peratikos, 3. P. F. Rebeiro, 4. S. N. Duda, 5. C. C. McGowan , Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 387 (2017). [OpenUrl][46] 14. [↵][47]1. O. Bargain, 2. D. Echevin, 3. N. Moreau, 4. A. Pacifico , working paper (2019); . 15. [↵][48][https://doi.o rg/10.5281/zenodo.3256633][49]. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the anonymous referees and to conference participants at the 2018 Conference of European Statistics Stakeholders (Bamberg, Germany) and 2019 Advances in Social Sciences using Administrative and Survey Data (Paris, France) for their comments. We thank the French Statistical Secrecy Committee and its president Jean-Eric Schoettl, the French National Research Agency (ANR-10-EQPX-17), the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the region Centre-Val de Loire, and the HEC Paris Foundation for their support. [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #ref-6 [8]: #ref-7 [9]: #ref-8 [10]: #ref-9 [11]: #ref-10 [12]: #ref-11 [13]: #ref-12 [14]: #ref-13 [15]: http://www.cascad.tech [16]: #ref-14 [17]: #ref-15 [18]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [19]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DEinav%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D346%26rft.issue%253D6210%26rft.spage%253D1243089%26rft.epage%253D1243089%26rft.atitle%253DEconomics%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bage%2Bof%2Bbig%2Bdata%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1243089%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25378629%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [20]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNDYvNjIxMC8xMjQzMDg5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzY1LzY0NDkvMTI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [21]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [22]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DChance%26rft.volume%253D30%26rft.spage%253D68%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [23]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [24]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DWavelets%2Band%2BStatistics%26rft.volume%253D103%26rft.spage%253D55%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [25]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [26]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DStodden%26rft.auinit1%253DV.%26rft.volume%253D354%26rft.issue%253D6317%26rft.spage%253D1240%26rft.epage%253D1241%26rft.atitle%253DEnhancing%2Breproducibility%2Bfor%2Bcomputational%2Bmethods%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.aah6168%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F27940837%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [27]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNTQvNjMxNy8xMjQwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzY1LzY0NDkvMTI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [28]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [29]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BEcon.%2BLit.%26rft.volume%253D56%26rft.spage%253D920%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [30]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [31]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSci.%2BData%26rft.volume%253D5%26rft.spage%253D180286%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [32]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [33]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DPeng%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BD.%26rft.volume%253D334%26rft.issue%253D6060%26rft.spage%253D1226%26rft.epage%253D1227%26rft.atitle%253DReproducible%2BResearch%2Bin%2BComputational%2BScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1213847%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22144613%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [34]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMzQvNjA2MC8xMjI2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzY1LzY0NDkvMTI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [35]: #xref-ref-8-1 "View reference 8 in text" [36]: #xref-ref-9-1 "View reference 9 in text" [37]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DInt.%2BJ.%2BDigit.%2BCuration%26rft.volume%253D13%26rft.spage%253D114%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [38]: #xref-ref-10-1 "View reference 10 in text" [39]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAm.%2BEcon.%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D107%26rft.spage%253D60%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [40]: #xref-ref-11-1 "View reference 11 in text" [41]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DProc.%2BNatl.%2BAcad.%2BSci.%2BU.S.A.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1073%252Fpnas.1708290115%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F29531050%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [42]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE1LzExLzI1ODQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL3NjaS8zNjUvNjQ0OS8xMjcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9 [43]: #xref-ref-12-1 "View reference 12 in text" [44]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPLOS%2BONE%26rft.volume%253D13%26rft.spage%253De0202447%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [45]: #xref-ref-13-1 "View reference 13 in text" [46]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BEpidemiol.%26rft.volume%253D186%26rft.spage%253D387%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [47]: #xref-ref-14-1 "View reference 14 in text" [48]: #xref-ref-15-1 "View reference 15 in text" [49]: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3256633

The field of replication studies remains a controversial, misunderstood.To help bring order to the chaos, the author suggests a theory of manufactured inferences. 

Every year, several hundred publications are retracted due to fabrication and falsification of data or plagiarism and other breeches of research integrity and ethics. However, the extent to which a retraction requires revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs is unknown.

Which factors have a strong systemic influence on the digitisation of higher education? Which can be influenced politically? The authors look at areas of action related to open science and discuss the extent to which future scenarios such as “disruption" can endanger university locations.

We reviewed current recommendations for reproducible research and translated them into criteria for assessing the reproducibility of articles in the field of geographic information science (GIScience). Results from the author feedback indicate that although authors support the concept of performing reproducible research, the incentives for doing this in practice are too small. Therefore, we propose concrete actions for individual researchers and the GIScience conference series to improve transparency and reproducibility.