Archives

So what is the difference between data, code and text?

Bjoern Brembs thinks there isn't really any. But read his interesting take on data sharing yourself:
So far, I can’t see any principal difference between our three kinds of intellectual output: software, data and texts.   I admit I’m somewhat surprised that there appears to be a need to write this post in 2014. After all, this is not really the dawn of the digital age any more. Be that as it may, it is now March 6, 2014, six days since PLoS’s ‘revolutionary’ data sharing policy was revealed and only few people seem to observe the irony of avid social media participants pretending it’s still 1982. For the uninitiated, just skim Twitter’s #PLoSfail, read Edmund Hart’s post or see Terry McGlynn’s post for some examples. I’ll try to refrain from reiterating any arguments made there already.

How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner

Great read an highly entertaining. Here are some quotes. But read the whole thing. Chances are you will like it.
But expanding your own creativity doesn’t suit everybody. For the exceptional students, the ones who can and probably will make a mark, they will still need institutions free from regulation.
 
The thing is to have no discipline at all. Biology got its main success by the importation of physicists that came into the field not knowing any biology and I think today that’s very important.
 
I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.
 
If you send a PDF of your own paper to a friend, then you are committing an infringement. Of course they can’t police it, and many of my colleagues just slap all their papers online. I think you’re only allowed to make a few copies for your own purposes. It seems to me to be absolutely criminal. When I write for these papers, I don’t give them the copyright. I keep it myself. That’s another point of publishing, don’t sign any copyright agreement. That’s my advice. I think it’s now become such a giant operation. I think it is impossible to try to get control over it back again.  

Journals suffer from computer generated junk [German]

Here is a great piece by Ulrich Herb on journals that suffer from computer generated articles.
Labbé stellt im Nature-Artikel zudem recht deutlich heraus, dass er (anders als Bohannon) keinen Zusammenhang zwischen schlampiger oder fehlender Qualitätssicherung und dem Publikationsmodell (Open Access oder Subskription) erkennen kann, schließlich erschienen alle von ihm aufgedeckten Betrugsfälle in Subskriptionsjournalen.

Look at PLOS, Everyone: New Data Policy For Open Access

PLOS seems to be a step ahead again - no publication without data from March 3rd:
In an effort to increase access to this data, we are now revising our data-sharing policy for all PLOS journals: authors must make all data publicly available, without restriction, immediately upon publication of the article. Beginning March 3rd, 2014, all authors who submit to a PLOS journal will be asked to provide a Data Availability Statement, describing where and how others can access each dataset that underlies the findings. This Data Availability Statement will be published on the first page of each article.

Machines are better referees than humans but we’ll be sued if we use them

So try it for yourself. Which compound is wrong? (*I* don’t know yet) How would you find out? Maybe you would go to Chemical Abstracts (ACS). Last time I looked it cost 6USD to look up a compound. That’s 50 dollars, just to check whether the literature is right. And you would be forbidden from publishing what you found there (ACS sent the lawyers to Wikipedia for publishing CAS registry numbers). What about Elsevier’s Reaxys? Almost certainly as bad.


petermr's blog

Microsoft Adds Momentum to “Open Science”

Momentum continues to build behind the “open science movement,” propelling the debate over publication of scholarly works and the scientific process itself. Last week, Microsoft Research announced it was adopting a policy that allows it to retain a license for research submitted to conferences or publishers in order to post it to a freely accessible online site as well. And earlier this week, pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson said it will release data from clinical trials, through an agreement with the Yale University Open Data Access Project.


re/code.

EuroScientist: Special Issue on Research Evaluation

As the title suggests, here is a link to the current special issue on research Evaluation from the EuroScientist. And here is an overview to the special issues and link to articles in it:
Editorial Alternatives to peer review See also our previous coverage on related topic New methods of evaluating research

It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough.

The Open Movement has made impressive strides in the past year, but do these strides stand for reform or are they just symptomatic of the further expansion and entrenchment of neoliberalism? Eric Kansa argues that it is time for the movement to broaden its long-term strategy to tackle the needs for wider reform in the financing and organization of research and education and oppose the all-pervasive trend of universities primarily serving the needs of commerce.


LSE Impact Blog.

Data-Sharing Angst: An Insight into an ongoing Research Project (Feedback appreciated)

Benedikt Fecher, one of our editors here, wrote a blog entry about a systematic review on data sharing in academia that he and his colleague Sascha Friesike conducted. It is part of his doctoral research. Particularly interesting might be the Data Sharing Angst:
Data sharing in academia is good for everyone. It allows better and more research. For the single researcher, however, these advantages are not so apparent. The category Returns indicates that sharing research data is rather related to negative than positive individual outcomes. For instance: Inhibiting returns include concerns about competitivedisadvantage regarding other researchers, commercial misuse of data, the falsification of results and flawed data interpretation by others – all of which can be subsumed as Data sharing Angst. They exist, whether justified or not.
Feedback, questions and ideas are more than welcome!

Interview with Malcolm Burrows

What do you think are the biggest challenges to the scientific community?
There are many aspects that currently make science an unattractive career to enter. We need urgently to make it more attractive to young people by enabling them to develop their own ideas, and that means giving them access to funding early in their career. The support of large groups should be tempered and more support given to individuals with great ideas and to those willing to tackle important and difficult ideas with uncertain outcomes.

Book Release: Opening Science – The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing

by Sascha Friesike and  Sönke Bartling.

The book is Open Access by Springer. You can read it for free and edit it online here.

The authors of this book try to give researchers, scientists, decision makers, politicians, and stakeholders an overview on the basics, the tools, and the vision behind the current changes we see in the field of knowledge creation often called "Open Science". It is meant as a starting point for readers to become an active part in the future of research and to become an informed party during the transition phase.  Everyone is invited to contribute to it and adopt and reuse its content.
 

Please spread the word and of course feel free to edit the book!

 

Impediments to Information and Knowledge Sharing Within Policing

Interesting article by Abrahamson and Goodman-Delahunty.
Information sharing is the lifeblood of policing, yet information/knowledge sharing within and across organizations remains problematic. This article elaborated on previous research on organizational information culture and its impact on information use outcomes in policing by examining perceived impediments to information sharing of 134 officers in three Canadian police organizations.