8 posts · 2,509 views
A blog dedicated to Open Science, Open Access and Open Data.
James
8 posts
Sort by: Latest Post, Most Popular
View by: Condensed, Full
- October 24, 2012
- 09:31 AM
- 257 views
Commercial Publishing is Taking Open Access Seriously
by James in Open Science
This morning I came across a paper by Laakso & Björk (2012) examining the volume of scientific articles published as OA journals from 2000 to 2011. One of the most interesting points they demonstrated was the internal shift in the structure of publisher types that are involved in OA: What we see here is the total [...]... Read more »
Laakso, M., & Björk, B. (2012) Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 124. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124
- August 16, 2012
- 07:40 AM
- 245 views
Independent Confirmation of Results and Academic Publishers: A Potential Opportunity?
by James in Open Science
Having already written about the need to independently test results, I’m pleased to see a news article in Nature that highlights the following initiative by Science Exchange to replicate high-profile papers: Scientific publishers are backing an initiative to encourage authors of high-profile research papers to get their results replicated by independent labs. Validation studies will [...]... Read more »
Baker, Monya. (2012) Independent labs to verify high-profile papers. Nature News. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2012.11176
- August 8, 2012
- 01:28 PM
- 272 views
The Forever Decline: Academia’s Monograph Crisis
by James in Open Science
A decade or so ago you’d be forgiven for thinking that the monograph was in terminal decline. Just take the now 13-year-old words of Stanley Chodorow, who in his work, The Pace of Scholarship, the Scholarly Career, and the Monograph, claimed that the specialization of the academic monograph signalled “Its evolutionary track is at an [...]... Read more »
Willinsky, John. (2009) Toward the Design of an Open Monograph Press. JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, 12(1). DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0012.103
- July 30, 2012
- 03:40 PM
- 275 views
Solving the Positive Results Bias
by James in Open Science
One of the biggest problems facing science is that it’s done by us mere humans. We’re highly fallible and, as a result, science is vulnerable to our numerous list of biases. To some extent the scientific method, as a collective activity, has gradually evolved to shield itself against these individual-level biases. For instance, the notion [...]... Read more »
Fanelli D. (2010) "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PloS one, 5(4). PMID: 20383332
Ioannidis JP. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8). PMID: 16060722
- July 23, 2012
- 06:07 AM
- 283 views
Multi-Stage Open Peer Review (Pöschl, 2012)
by James in Open Science
One of the supposed conflicts in academic publishing is ensuring quality reviewed research in an environment of rapid scientific exchange. Traditional peer review, for instance, is a prime example of scientific quality: it allows for the dissemination of knowledge to pass through a filter of peers that self-regulates the suitability of a paper for publication. [...]... Read more »
Pöschl U. (2012) Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 33. PMID: 22783183
- July 16, 2012
- 05:10 AM
- 324 views
Open Science is already being practiced
by James in Open Science
Part of making science more open is taking our pre-existing ways of disseminating and practicing science, as seen in journals and statistical programs, and making them open. But there is a larger change taking place. Domains previously more reliant on argumentation and advocacy are now starting to equip themselves with the methodological toolkits us scientists are [...]... Read more »
Brooks, Greg. (2008) Randomised controlled trial of incentives to improve attendance at adult literacy classes. Oxford Review of Education, 317(5), 362-504. DOI: 10.1080/03054980701768741
- July 12, 2012
- 06:03 AM
- 461 views
On the Frontlines of Wikipedia’s ‘Editorial Wars’
by James in Open Science
It’s often difficult to appreciate the brilliance of Wikipedia. Only eleven years old, this free, collaboratively edited and multilingual encyclopaedia is so ingrained in our everyday experience that, like so many successful cultural products, we now take it for granted. One particular charge that’s grown up with WP concerns its purported inaccuracy. Indeed, anecdotally, I’ve noticed [...]... Read more »
Yasseri T, Sumi R, Rung A, Kornai A, & Kertész J. (2012) Dynamics of conflicts in wikipedia. PloS one, 7(6). PMID: 22745683
- July 11, 2012
- 01:00 PM
- 392 views
Part Three: Welcome to Open Science (an introduction)
by James in Open Science
If I were to crudely cobble together a book on the dissemination of scientific knowledge, then I would probably organise it into three parts. For the first, it would discuss how we evolved from tinkering apes; blindly and, at times, consciously experimenting with various technologies and methods. Over the next few millennia we would see a gradual shift from communal knowledge of tribal communities to the development of writing and its spawning of cultural institutions, such as libraries and univ........ Read more »
Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Bettencourt L, Chute R, Rodriguez MA, & Balakireva L. (2009) Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PloS one, 4(3). PMID: 19277205
topics
join us!
Do you write about peer-reviewed research in your blog? Use ResearchBlogging.org to make it easy for your readers — and others from around the world — to find your serious posts about academic research.
If you don't have a blog, you can still use our site to learn about fascinating developments in cutting-edge research from around the world.
