•  

  • Bibliotecă
  • Blog
  • Definiții
KossonADW
EiflADW
SparcEuADW
UnescoADW
DoajADW
DoabADW
OadADW
OkADW
OpenAIREADW
OpenAccessWeekADW
RoarmapADW
SherpaADW
ZenodoADW
  • Introducere
  • Standarde și certificări
  • Declarații și poziții oficiale
  • Documente
  • Resurse secundare
  • La treabă
  • Cazuistică RO
  • Resurse Educaționale Deschise
  • Științe Deschise
  • Despre acces-deschis.ro
  • Rafturile biblioteci
  • Materiale video
  • Resurse web
  • Resurse web
  • Bloguri relevante

Bloguri relevante

  • Accesări: 945 Editare
    Link web Retraction Watch
    • retraction watch
    • blog

    "So why write a blog on retractions?

    First, science takes justifiable pride in the fact that it is self-correcting — most of the time. Usually, that just means more or better data, not fraud or mistakes that would require a retraction. But when a retraction is necessary, how long does that self-correction take? The Wakefield retraction, for example, was issued 12 years after the original study, and six years after serious questions had been raised publicly by journalist Andrew Brian Deer. (Thanks to commenter Tutak for letting us know about this error.) Retractions are therefore a window into the scientific process.

    Second, retractions are not often well-publicized. Sure, there are the high-profile cases such as Reuben’s and Wakefield’s. But most retractions live in obscurity in Medline and other databases. That means those who funded the retracted research — often taxpayers — aren’t particularly likely to find out about them. Nor are investors always likely to hear about retractions on basic science papers whose findings may have formed the basis for companies into which they pour dollars. So we hope this blog will form an informal repository for the retractions we find, and might even spur the creation of a retraction database such as the one called for here by K.M Korpela.

    Third, they’re often the clues to great stories about fraud or other malfeasance, as Adam learned when he chased down the Reuben story. The reverse can also be true. The Cancer Letter’s expose of Potti and his fake Rhodes Scholarship is what led his co-authors to remind The Lancet Oncology of their concerns, and then the editors to issue their expression of concern. And they can even lead to lawsuits for damaged reputations. If highlighting retractions will give journalists more tools to uncover fraud and misuse of funds, we’re happy to help. And if those stories are appropriate for our respective news outlets, you’ll only read about them on Retraction Watch once we’ve covered them there.

    Finally, we’re interested in whether journals are consistent. How long do they wait before printing a retraction? What requires one? How much of a public announcement, if any, do they make? Does a journal with a low rate of retractions have a better peer review and editing process, or is it just sweeping more mistakes under the rug?"

    [Sursa: http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/]

  • Accesări: 821 Editare
    Link web Innovations in Scholarly Communication
    • 101 innovations
    • scholarly communications
    This survey is part of an ongoing effort to chart the changing landscape of scholarly communication. The changes in this landscape are driven by technology, policies, and culture, but in the end only take place because researchers and other stakeholders decide to adapt their workflows or recommend changes to others. Thus, the developing landscape is for an important part expressed through changing tool usage. New tools are constantly being developed by researchers themselves, small start-ups or big players, as reflected in our list of scholarly communication tools that now offers over 575 of these tools. However, tool usage varies by field, country and position. How exactly is what we intend to find out with this survey that will run until February 10, 2016. The good news is that you won’t have to wait that long for the results! We will post preliminary updates and insights on this site and present findings at various meetings during and after this survey.
OpenAire bkg transparentProiectul european care asigură infrastructura de valorificare a rezultatelor de cercetare și a datelor rezultate din FP7 și Orizont 2020

Materiale argument pentru Accesul Deschis produse de proiectul PASTEUR4OA.

Sparc Europe Logo

Serviciul pentru demonstrarea avantajelor citării lucrărilor cu Acces Deschis
eifl logo
EIFL Open Access Programme
UNESCO logo
Acces Deschis la informația științifică și Portalul Global pentru Acces Deschis
Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt sub licență Creative Commons BY-NC-SA.