1. More science than you think is retracted. Even more should be.
Every retraction tells a story. At least half the time, that story involves misconduct or fraud. But sometimes retractions tell tales of science working just as it should, without misconduct. Although retractions are considered the nuclear option in scholarly publishing, they are really a sign that science is operating as advertised, notes Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, in their post in The Washington Post Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Over the past eight years, they have compiled a database of more than 18,000 retracted papers from the scholarly literature, the oldest of which dates to 1756. And although the rate of retractions seems to be plateauing, at somewhere south of one-tenth of 1 percent of papers published, it grew dramatically between 2000 and just a few years ago. While 18,000 retractions may sound like a lot, that amount is clearly just a fraction of the total number of papers that should be banished from the literature. They know that because some 2 percent of researchers admit, in anonymous surveys, to acts that are considered misconduct. And for every whistleblower who sees his or her work lead to a retraction, they hear from several who are met with silence or retaliation………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. British publisher pulls academic journals from China after government complaint
A British academic publisher has dropped more than 80 journals from its offerings in China at the government's request, including the Asian Studies Review which had content deemed "inappropriate" by authorities. They are the latest journals to be restricted since Chinese importers of foreign publications were told by authorities last year they must verify that products are legal, discusses Christian Shepherd, in his post in the Reuters Blog.
The blog post says (quote): In recent times, the Chinese government has initiated wide-ranging censorship of academic publications, in ways that have embroiled academic publishers. The censorship issue erupted in August 2017 when Britain's Cambridge University Press (CUP) removed online access to hundreds of scholarly articles in China after coming under pressure from authorities. CUP reversed the decision and restored access to the articles within a few days. Under President Xi Jinping, censorship efforts by the government have been heightened and the authority of the ruling Communist Party, as well as its views on society, history and politics, have been re-asserted over academia………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Europe Speeds Ahead on Open Access: 2018 in Review
Open access is the common-sense idea that scientific research should be available to the public-ideally with no legal or technical barriers to access and reuse. EFF, a longtime supporter of the open access movement, thinks that promoting broad access to knowledge and information helps to ensure that everyone can speak out and participate in society, notes Elliot Harmon, in his post in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Plan S reflects a more aggressive open access policy than FASTR does. FASTR requires that government agencies that fund scientific research require grantees to make their papers available to the public within a year of publication; the original publication can happen in a traditional, closed journal. Plan S takes that much further, requiring grantees to publish their research in an open access journal or repository from day one. What's more, grantees must publish their papers under an open license allowing others to share and reuse them. In discussions on open access laws, EFF has long urged lawmakers to consider including open licensing mandates. Allowing the public to read the research is a great first step, but allowing the public to reuse and adapt it (even commercially) unlocks its true economic and educational potential………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply