1. Reinvent scientific publishing with blockchain technology
If the open flow of scientific information is a fundamental part of science, then the scientific community is in trouble. Academic publishers, which dominate scientific publishing, reap great financial rewards from the work done by scientists, who are often frustrated and handcuffed by the process. If harnessed correctly, blockchain technology can enable the change the industry sorely needs, notes Manuel Martin, in his post in the STAT Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Third-party companies have made huge profits from the work of scientists for many years, selling journals and reprints to a variety of institutions. In blockchain-powered scientific publishing, researchers would control whether or not institutions are required to pay to use their work, while making it freely available to the public and researchers alike, if they so wish. Using blockchain technology, the entire editorial history and research quality of a manuscript could be evaluated continuously. If manuscripts are available from the moment they are submitted, even in early draft status, then the cumbersome process of re-submitting research would be eliminated and the dissemination of manuscripts would be greatly accelerated. Blockchain technology also opens the door to more discoveries through the empowerment of scientists………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Brief History of Disability and Web Accessibility in the United States
The conversation surrounding accessibility and disability in the United States started more than two centuries ago. It is important to appreciate the steadfast advocacy and relentless pursuit by various individuals and organisations to ensure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. It is also worthwhile to pause and review important events and laws that have led to the conversations that dominate the discussion today – web accessibility. Mian Bishop, in his post in the EBSCOpost Blog, explores the history of accessibility and disability challenges.
The blog post says (quote): Web "content" usually refers to the information in a web page or web application that includes natural information (e.g., text, images and sounds) and code or markup that defines structure, presentation, etc. Web "accessibility" means that the design and development of websites, technologies and tools ensures that people with disabilities can use them. Specifically, the expectation is that people with disabilities must be able to understand, perceive, navigate, interact with and contribute to the Web. It encompasses all disabilities that affect access to the Web such as auditory, speech, visual, cognitive, neurological and physical. Historically, the United States has come a long way in addressing the needs of people with disabilities. EBSCO Information Services is committed to ensuring that our products and services are accessible to all our customers and users, regardless of disability………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Oh, What A Tangled Web! Citation Network Underscores Editorial Conflicts of Interest
The separation of powers is as important in academic publishing as it is in government. If readers are to trust the integrity of the editorial and peer review process, editors need to be insulated from the business of publishing, which often means keeping them away from their colleagues in marketing, sales, and advertising, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): The vast majority of citations used to calculate 2017 Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) for some ASP journals came from other ASP journals. For example, 87 percent (384) of the citations that determined the JIF score for Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy were from other ASP journals, leaving just 13 percent (56) citations from other sources. If they were to remove ASP citations from Clarivate's calculations, its JIF would drop from 2.993 to just 0.381. Similarly, 83 percent of citations determining the JIF score for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Letters came from other ASP journals. These two journals also share the same EiC (Dr. Nongyue He). While these percentages should be alarming to most readers, they apparently are not high enough to invoke editorial suppression from the Journal Citation Reports. Last year, the European Geosciences Union conducted an investigation of Artemi Cerdà – an editor suspected of abusing his position to manipulate the citation record to benefit his own journal, Land Degradation and Development, and his own publications. The publishers of EGU journals (Copernicus and Wiley) were involved as well. Without the separation of roles and powers, such an investigation (and ultimate resignation of the EiC) would not have been possible………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. A Tale of Two Agendas - or why we need to think differently about impact of research in international development
In addition to the established impact agenda, those doing research for development now also have to contend with the ODA research agenda, primarily aimed at generating impact in developing countries. Valeria Izzi, in her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, observes that, while there are clear similarities between the two, so far remarkably little reflection has gone into how they fit together and interplay. There is a risk these two agendas may be pulling academia in different directions, with negative consequences for all involved.
The blog post says (quote): In very practical terms, this means universities across the UK – including those with limited experience of development research so far - have been busily gearing up to access these new sources of funding. Questions about the consequences of this new agenda are starting to emerge. On the academic side, these questions closely mirror the points made above: will the new ODA research agenda divert focus from the pursuit of academic knowledge towards impact sensationalism? Will those disciplines that can more easily show visible, short-term results in developing countries be at an unfair advantage? Yet different concerns are raised from aid specialists about the possible diversion of ODA resources away from their intended purpose, potentially diluting the anti-poverty imperative in favour of simply showing "good intentions" in addressing development problems. It certainly does not allay anybody's fear the fact that some of these resources are effectively "double counted" in both the science and the aid budgets………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply