This perspective article proposes that the answer shifts the conception of replication from a boring, uncreative, housekeeping activity to an exciting, generative, vital contributor to research progress.
A Standardized Citation Metrics Author Database Annotated for Scientific Field
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).
Data Sharing: Better for Everyone, Especially You!! | PLOS Biologue
Happy Open Data Day 2019! It's that special day of the year again! Well, every day should be Open Data Day, but today lots of motivated folk come together around the world to remind us all why Open Data, Open Science, and sharing of data and science in general is better for everyone. Better for reuse, better for tracking public money flows, better for open mapping and development, and also, lest we lost sight, better for the researcher who produced the data! Why better for the researchers who generated the data? Better because the value add from sharing is multifold. Others can reuse and reanalyse your data. If you've placed the data in a repository with a persistent identifier, you'll get attributed when they are reused and you can get credit for this - and even citations. What may not be immediately obvious is that taking a little bit of time to ensure your data are 'sharable' is good practise that ensures that when you want to use
Models Highlight Inherent Inefficiencies of Scientific Funding Competitions
Scientists waste substantial time writing grant proposals, potentially squandering much of the scientific value of funding programs. This Meta-Research Article shows that, unfortunately, grant-proposal competitions are inevitably inefficient when the number of awards is small, but efficiency can be restored by awarding funds through a modified lottery, or by weighting past research success more heavily in funding decisions.
Science Without Publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access
In this Perspective, a group of national funders, joined by the European Commission and the European Research Council, announce plans to make Open Access publishing mandatory for recipients of their agencies' research funding.
Scientific research can be a cutthroat business, with undue pressure to publish quickly, first, and frequently. PLOS Biology is now formalizing a policy whereby manuscripts that confirm or extend a recently published study are eligible for consideration.
Imagining The "Open" University: Sharing Scholarship to Improve Research and Education
This Perspective article argues that universities should take action to support open scholarship that benefits society and to return to their core missions of knowledge dissemination, community engagement, and public good.
Ambra, the PLOS Journal Publishing Platform, is Open Again
Ambra is an innovative Open Source platform for publishing Open Access research articles. It provides features for post-publication discussion and versioned articles that allows for a “living” document around which further scientific discoveries can be made. The platform is in active development by PLOS (Public Library of Science) and is licensed under the MIT License.
Why Having a (Nonfinancial) Interest Is Not a Conflict of Interest
A current debate about conflicts of interest related to biomedical research is to question whether the focus on financial conflicts of interest overshadows “nonfinancial” interests that could put scientific judgment at equal or greater risk of bias.
Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science
Seeking to accelerate research advances and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science—open data, open materials, and no patenting—across the institution.
Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions
Researchers acting to maximise their fitness should spend most of their effort seeking novel results and conduct small studies that have only 10%–40% statistical power. As a result, half of the studies they publish will report erroneous conclusions. Current incentive structures are in conflict with maximising the scientific value of research; we suggest ways that the scientific ecosystem could be improved.
Citation metrics are very influential and their normalization is a contentious issue. Each normalization approach has advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper use of these metrics.