1. Building for the long term: Why business strategies are needed for community-owned infrastructure
Community-led projects have taken on an increased urgency after the recent spate of acquisitions of essential infrastructure by commercial interests. The goals here are both laudable and achievable, but when we think about scholarly communications, we must take the long-term view. As community-owned and -led efforts to build scholarly communications infrastructure gain momentum, David Crotty, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog looks at what can be done to help them achieve long term sustainability?
The Blog post says (quote): The way to overcome this problem is to build in a business model from the very beginning of the project. Relying on grants, donations, or membership dues is an unstable foundation for a project meant to stand the test of time. A change in government, an economic downturn, or a shift in priorities for your key members can be the undoing of a valuable piece of infrastructure that is reliant upon the goodwill of donors.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read: Here.
2. Will E-Books feed University Presses — or eat them? part one
What roles are e-books now playing, and what roles will they play, in scholarly disciplines for which books are a primary, often the apex, scholarly form? This is the first of two posts about e-book publishing and university presses. Book disciplines are facing a lot of the same questions about digital publishing that journal-based disciplines have been trying to answer for two decades, notes Karin Wulf in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen.
The Blog post says (quote): How can author deliver this scholarship in digital form cleanly, efficiently, and sustainably? How will libraries acquire it? How will readers access and then use it? How will authors understand their relationship to the publisher of it? This is not to say that e-books are new; they’re not. But the simultaneous pressures, themselves not new, of increasing scholarly output, pinched library budgets and the intensive resources needed to produce scholarly monographs are pushing university presses to think about new ways that digital books can alleviate these and other pressures, including the important goal of increasing access to scholarship.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read: Here.
3. Is openness in AI research always the answer?
As research into AI has become more developed, so too has the understanding that AI research might be misused. Discussing OpenAI’s recent decision to withhold the source code for an algorithm designed to replicate handwriting, citing concerns for the public good, Gabrielle Samuel in his post in the LSE Impact Blog argues that blanket commitments to openness are insufficient to protect against the potential ‘dual-use’ of AI research and that AI researchers need to develop a shared ethical code of conduct for releasing their research findings.
The Blog post says (quote): The explosion of Artificial intelligence (“AI”) research, has triggered concerns and significant speculation about what an AI future might bring. Concerns which were further underscored by the recent news of a massive £150 million investment in an Oxford University AI ethics centre. In a move to control and regulate the field, a plethora of AI ethics guidelines and recommendations have emerged. One of the key principles cited in these guidelines is the need for openness to ensure fairness, equity and transparency...........(unquote)
The full entry can be read: Here.
4. How can we combat the rise of fake news in science?
In 2016, the Ottawa Citizen exposed predatory publisher, OMICS International, by submitting a paper exploring the biomechanics of how pigs fly. The paper was immediately accepted for inclusion, proving that the organisation had no interest in reviewing the literature before accepting it. Ramya Sriram, in her post in the ScientistLive, explains the different ways that fake news is spread in science and how scientists can avoid it.
The blog post says (quote): Predatory publishers will publish anything submitted to them, provided the required fee is paid. In such publishing houses, the traditional checks of scientific publishing, from peer review to an editorial board, are skipped. This means there is no guarantee that the research is correct, accurate or even truthful – opening the door for fake papers to be published. Another issue is that some science journalism can lead to the spread of fake news. Journalists might generalise the facts to a point where they are overreaching or, in some cases, no longer true........(unquote)
The full entry can be read: Here.
5. Scientific researchers must maintain integrity
The million-dollar question that universities ask almost all PhD candidates is, “Why do you want to pursue a research career in biological sciences?” The answer almost always is, “For the betterment of science.” But is this really true? Stepping inside research laboratories and institutions, one can easily get the clear picture of this falsifiable statement, discusses Lakshmy Ramakrishnan in her post in the DownToEarth blog.
The Blog post says (quote): In many cases, scientific results are often skewed for favourable outcomes. The misconduct has far-reaching consequences and ultimately it is the patient who has to pay the price. The observation is certainly not to mitigate the importance of modern science, but many of the present day maladies can be managed more easily if handled with honesty. Scientific misconduct in research appears in three forms: falsification, fabrication and plagiarism........(unquote)
The full entry can be read: Here.
Leave a Reply