The Death of the Literature Review and the Rise of the Dynamic Knowledge Map
Almost every academic article starts with a literature review. However, although these short research summaries can be beneficial they also introduce opportunities for unverifiable misrepresentation and self-aggrandizement.
AmeliCA Celebrates Invest in Open Infrastructure Birth
Open Knowledge for Latin America and the Global south (AmeliCA) is pleased to be part of this initiative that furthers an open, scalable, long-lasting scientific infrastructure that seeks to spread its benefits worldwide.
Should We Trust Meta-Analyses with Meta-Conflicts of Interest?
There are a couple of angles to look at researcher conflict of interest from. One is that a conflict could distort their work, tilting findings and claims away from "the truth". The other is for the way the work is received, not how it is done: authors' perceived conflicts could damage credibility. How does this translate to authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses? Are the issues the same, no matter the type of study? I've been thinking about that a lot lately. I was one of the external stakeholders consulted as part of the Cochrane Collaboration's review of its conflict of interest policy for their systematic reviews editorial teams. As they explain, they are looking to strengthen their approach to financial conflicts, and "consider a wider range of possible inherent biases". In biomedicine at least, systematic reviewers/meta-analysts are widely seen as arbiters on the state of knowledge. Their work often guides individual decisions, policy, and funding. I think that
UC Press Supports University of California's Stance on Elsevier
As the publishing arm of the University of California system, UC Press supports the UC libraries in their cancellation of the Elsevier "big deal" package. As small to medium-sized publishers of largely humanities and social sciences (HSS) journals, university presses (including UC Press) have had to compete for diminishing library resources to support our publishing programs.
Who Are You Writing For? The Role of Community Membership on Authors' Decisions to Publish in Open Access Mega-Journals
Open Access mega-journals have in some academic disciplines become a key channel for communicating research. In others, however, they remain unknown. This article explores how authors’ perceptions of mega-journals differ across disciplines and are shaped by motivations associated with the multiple communities they function within.
Open Access 2018: A Year of Funders and Universities Drawing Lines in the Sand
When the year began, the world's largest academic publisher, Elsevier, had increased their annual profits, with an operating profit approaching US$1.2 billion in science, technology, and medicine - a profit margin of over 36%. By year's end, a hefty chunk of the world's research community was walking away from big subscription deals with Elsevier and others.
Postdocs Trying to Transition to Non-academic Careers Should Be Offered More Support by Their Supervisors and Universities
Despite the position being billed as a stepping stone on the way to tenure-track academic employment, many postdocs, discouraged by their poor prospects, are questioning their career choices and instead looking to non-academic jobs as an alternative. However, as Chris Hayter and Marla A. Parker reveal, making this transition is not as easy as it might first appear.
How to Keep Up to Date with the Literature but Avoid Information Overload
Getting the most out of your Google Scholar profile, creating some old-fashioned table of contents alerts, and simply setting aside time to periodically review key journal titles will ensure you rarely miss out on important research.
The Growing, High-stakes Audit Culture Within the Academy Has Brought About a Different Kind of Publishing Crisis
The spate of high-profile cases of fraudulent publications has revealed a widening replication, or outright deception, crisis in the social sciences. To Marc Spooner, researchers “cooking up” findings and the deliberate faking of science is a result of extreme pressures to publish, brought about by an increasingly pervasive audit culture within the academy.
Despite Becoming Increasing Institutionalised, There Remains a Lack of Discourse About Research Metrics Among Much of Academia
The active use of metrics in everyday research activities suggests academics have accepted them as standards of evaluation, that they are “thinking with indicators”. Yet when asked, many academics profess concern about the limitations of evaluative metrics and the extent of their use.
In the Era of Brexit and Fake News, Scientists Need to Embrace Social Media
Social media can promote openness in research as international partnerships and collaborations are jeopardised, while increased adoption by scientists can also redress the balance that has shifted towards ill-evidenced news on some platforms.
Evidence-Informed Policymaking: Does Knowledge Brokering Work?
Sarah Quarmby takes a look inside a knowledge broker organisation, the Wales Centre for Public Policy, to see how its day-to-day workings tally with the body of knowledge about evidence use in policymaking.
Random Audits Could Shift the Incentive for Researchers From Quantity to Quality
One way to push back against the pressure to “publish or perish” is to randomly audit a small proportion of researchers and take time to assess their research in detail. Auditors could examine complex measures of quality which no metric could ever capture such as originality, reproducibility, and research translation.
Seven Functionalities the Scholarly Literature Should Have
A short list of seven functionalities that academic publishers looking to modernize their operations might invest in; from unencumbered access and improved social components, to dynamic data visualisations and more precise hyperlinking.
The Concept of Research Impact Pervades Contemporary Academic Discourse – But What Does It Actually Mean?
Research impact is often talked about, but how clear is it what this term really means? The authors highlight four core elements that comprise most research impact definitions and propose a new conceptualisation of research impact relevant to health policy.
The Neuroskeptic commentary on a new paper by Chris Drummond about the ‘reproducibility movement’. Assuming that what really matters is the testability of a given hypothesis, how fundamental is reproducibility to science?
In a profession rewarding productivity in the form of papers and grants, sitting down to deeply read journal articles can feel like wasted time. Professor logs every paper she read over multiple years to gain insight on personal research practices.
Elsevier References Dominate Those That Are Not Open at Crossref
Of all 956,050,193 references from journal articles stored at Crossref, 32.00% are from journal articles published by Elsevier, none of which are in the Crossref “Open” category, freely available for others to use.