Blogs selected for Week February 17 to February 23, 2020 -

1. The “Pure Publish” Agreement

Pure publish contracts are possible now. It is not necessary to wait for the subscription publishers to change their business model or to pair a pure publish component with a read and publish component in a transformative agreement. The notion of a pure publish agreement has been emerging for some time even if it hadn’t been named previously. Some of the transformative agreements that have been discussed as read and publish (or publish and read), in this post by Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, in actuality also include a pure publish component.

The full entry can be read: Here.

2. Retractions: the good, the bad, and the ugly. What researchers stand to gain from taking more care to understand errors in the scientific record

Retractions play an important role in research communication by highlighting and explaining how research projects have failed and thereby preventing these mistakes from being repeated. However, the process of retraction and the data it produces is often sparse or incomplete. Drawing on evidence from 2046 retraction records, Quan-Hoang Vuong discusses the emerging trends this data highlights and argues for the need to enforce reporting standards for retractions, as a means of de-stigmatising retraction and rewarding practising integrity in the scholarly record.

The full entry can be read: Here.

3. How a 'no raw data, no science' outlook can resolve the reproducibility crisis in science

When we look for reliable sources of information, we turn to studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. But in some cases, researchers find it difficult to reproduce the results of certain studies, and often their findings turn out to be different from the original ones—even when the same methods and procedures are used—thereby making the study unreliable. This discrepancy is called a "reproducibility crisis"—or the inability of scientific findings to be replicated by other researchers. This problem has become more prevalent over the past few decades, and according to existing evidence, it affects up to a quarter of studies in cancer research and over a third of studies in psychology. Scientists often tend to avoid suggesting research misconduct as a cause, possibly to avoid controversies. This post by Fujita Health University discusses an editorial published in Molecular Brain by Prof Tsuyoshi Miyakawa, one of the Editors-in-chief, in which he describes how this inhibition might further aggravate the issue.

The full entry can be read: Here.

4. People not technology: the role of leadership in digital transformation

Leading an effective digital organisation is also about understanding the impact and implications of digital and using these tools to respond to challenges and opportunities. There are various elements that make up this process, one of which is to look at the digital tools you use and notice where your skills lie. Most UK universities want more direction from leadership in terms of digital transformation, but what should this leadership look like? A digital leader is someone that understands that people are the most important factor in digital transformation, and that technology is just there to enable those people to achieve their desired outcomes more effectively, notes John Sumpter in this post.

The full entry can be read: Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sponsor links

For banner ads click here