Rebooting Review, Distributing Data, Opening Science

Though the "publish or perish" life of an academic never rests, it can't help but be infused with the rhythm of the school year. Perhaps that explains a recent surge in bloggerly analysis of the institutions and infrastructures that infuse this scientific lifestyle. From peer review to data collection, there isn't facet of this world that isn't being reconceputalized in terms of openess and transparency. Mike the Mad Biologist has some thoughts on how this might impact the Researcher-Data Producer Conflict, and you should check out this classic from Common Knowledge's John Wilbanks over at SeedMagzine, on why the existing publishing system crowds out younger researchers. And with a high profile case of the system breaking down in the national press, there's no better time to go back to the drawing board.

Could Open Science Resolve the Researcher-Data Producer Conflict?

Mike the mad biologistAugust 26, 2010

"Last week, I wrote about the problems facing genomics and the concept of ownership of data. While I am sympathetic to researchers' career needs under the current system, I don't think we can, in good conscience, let that get in the way of rapid data release, especially in applied areas."

Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review

science is cultureAugust 29, 2010

"'Now some humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review has on admission to career-making journals and, as a consequence, to the charmed circle of tenured academe. They argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to assess the quality of work.'"

The Matthew Effect

Seed MagazineAugust 30, 2010

"When it comes to scientific publishing and fame, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. How can we break this feedback loop?"

Tags

More like this

From the New York Times: Now some humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review has on admission to career-making journals and, as a consequence, to the charmed circle of tenured academe. They argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to assess the…
Everyone and their grandmother knows that Impact Factor is a crude, unreliable and just wrong metric to use in evaluating individuals for career-making (or career-breaking) purposes. Yet, so many institutions (or rather, their bureaucrats - scientists would abandon it if their bosses would) cling…
The New York Times has an article about a physician-scientist caught in scientific misconduct. The particular physician-scientist, Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, was an Army surgeon working at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He is now (for the time being anyway) a professor of medicine at Washington…
People expressed a healthy skepticism to my assertion that money for science in the economic stimulus package is not the best way to fund science and may do more harm than good.  One of my assumptions in that argument was that this funding would be short-term and not followed through with further…