From MFKP_wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Selection: with tag publish-or-perish [45 articles] 

 

Stressing mental health

  
Science, Vol. 356, No. 6340. (25 May 2017), pp. 878-878, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356.6340.878

Abstract

[Excerpt] [...] Stress is an ingrained and unavoidable aspect of scientific practice. In some unfortunate cases, lab culture can make it worse. In many others, however, it is simply the nature of research. Deadlines, tight funding, and the pressure to “publish or perish” all create chronic stress. There is no avoiding these issues. [...] Personally, I realized that self-imposed deadlines and goals created much of the stress I was feeling, and that tempering my expectations was an easy way to reduce ...

 

Opinion: on being an advisor to today’s junior scientists

  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114, No. 21. (23 May 2017), pp. 5321-5323, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704511114

Abstract

[Excerpt] Young scientists often have the same long-term goal: use one’s smarts and drive to gain insights into a problem of interest. Typically, these scientists draw upon a long-standing and time-tested scientific process: formulate a hypothesis, design experiments to test this hypothesis, collect data, interpret the data, revisit and modify the hypothesis, and so on. [\n] Unfortunately, the reality isn’t quite so straightforward. The hours are long and the rewards short. And the challenges for fledgling scientists seem to be growing. Attractive ...

 

Academia’s never-ending selection for productivity

  
Scientometrics In Scientometrics, Vol. 103, No. 1. (15 February 2015), pp. 333-336, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1534-5

Abstract

[Excerpt] Over the last decade, a debate has been emerging on “Academia’s obsession with quantity” (Lawrence 2007; Fischer et al. 2012a) and the subsequent Impact Factor Race, an unhealthy game played by scientists (Cherubini 2008; Brischoux and Cook 2009). Despite being widely despised by the scientific community (but see Loyola et al. 2012), the “publish or perish” dogma and the use of productivity indices (e.g., journal’s impact factor, number of published articles) to assess a researcher’s output seem to hold on, ...

 

Corporate culture: protect idea factories

  
Nature, Vol. 543, No. 7646. (22 March 2017), pp. 491-491, https://doi.org/10.1038/543491a

Abstract

[Excerpt] It is unsurprising that universities have adopted corporate culture (Nature 540, 315; 10.1038/540315a2016), but surprising that they select such archaic models. Universities corporatize because they must raise funds through teaching, research and commercialization. [...] Universities are the only social institutions set up specifically to produce ideas, and this is their most valuable societal role. [...] Many universities have copied the manufacturing models of the 1950s. Power has shifted from academics to administrators. Academics are treated as interchangeable and replaceable, and performance ...

 

Are conservation biologists working too hard?

  
Biological Conservation, Vol. 166 (October 2013), pp. 186-190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.029

Abstract

[Highlights] [::] We analyze the work habits of conservation biologists contributing to Biological Conservation. [::] Conservation scientists conduct substantial amount of work on weekends and after office time. [::] There are geographical differences in the tendency to work on weekends or after office time. [::] Over time there has been a gradual increase in the tendency to conduct work on weekends. [Abstract] The quintessential scientist is exceedingly hardworking and antisocial, and one who would spend countless evenings and weekends buried under her/his microscopes and manuscripts. In an ...

 

The mismeasurement of science

  
Current Biology, Vol. 17, No. 15. (07 August 2007), pp. R583-R585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.014

Abstract

[Excerpt:Impact factors and citations] Crucially, impact factors are distorted by positive feedback — many citations are not based on reading the paper but by reading other papers, particularly reviews. One study even suggested that, of cited articles, only some 20% had actually been read. [...] Nevertheless, citations are now being used to make quantitative comparisons between scientists. [...] [Changes in behaviour] Unfortunately, the use of these measures is having damaging effects on perceptions and on behaviour; these I list below. Please note that ...

 

The politics of publication

  
Nature, Vol. 422, No. 6929. (20 March 2003), pp. 259-261, https://doi.org/10.1038/422259a

Abstract

Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Listen. All over the world scientists are fretting. [Excerpt] The decision about publication of a paper is the result of interaction between authors, editors and reviewers. Scientists are increasingly desperate to publish in a few top journals and are wasting time and energy manipulating their manuscripts and courting editors. As a result, the objective presentation of work, the accessibility of articles and the quality of research itself are being compromised. ...

 

Lost in publication: how measurement harms science

  
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol. 8 (03 June 2008), pp. 9-11, https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00079

Abstract

Measurement of scientific productivity is difficult. The measures used (impact factor of the journal, citations to the paper being measured) are crude. But these measures are now so universally adopted that they determine most things that matter: tenure or unemployment, a postdoctoral grant or none, success or failure. As a result, scientists have been forced to downgrade their primary aim from making discoveries to publishing as many papers as possible—and trying to work them into high impact factor journals. Consequently, scientific ...

 

Ethics among scholars in academic publishing

  
In 2012 Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference (2012), 1948

Abstract

This paper offers a survey of the contemporary and common-place ethical breaches concerning authorship, research, and publishing in today’s scholarly production, as juxtaposed with some of the predominant standards and guidelines that have been developed to direct academic publishing practices. While the paper may suggest the need for an updated and comprehensive set of guidelines for multiple discipline areas, the purpose here is to prepare the theoretical framework for a future computing discipline-specific study of ethical authorship and related concepts in ...

 

Programmers, professors, and parasites: credit and co-authorship in computer science

  
Science and Engineering Ethics In Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 4. (2009), pp. 467-489, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9119-4

Abstract

This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be ...

 

Scientists behaving badly

  
Nature, Vol. 435, No. 7043. (9 June 2005), pp. 737-738, https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a

Abstract

To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices, argue Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries. [\n] Serious misbehaviour in research is important for many reasons, not least because it damages the reputation of, and undermines public support for, science. Historically, professionals and the public have focused on headline-grabbing cases of scientific misconduct, but we believe that researchers can no longer afford to ignore ...

 

The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics

  
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (2016), pp. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

Abstract

This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects ...

 

The natural selection of bad science

  
Open Science, Vol. 3, No. 9. (01 September 2016), 160384, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

Abstract

Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing—no deliberate cheating nor loafing—by scientists, only that publication is a principal factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further ...

 

Corporate culture has no place in academia

  
Nature, Vol. 538, No. 7623. (3 October 2016), pp. 7-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/538007a

Abstract

‘Academic capitalism’ contributed to the mishandling of the Macchiarini case by officials at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, argues Olof Hallonsten. [Excerpt] [...] As academic capitalism spreads, universities abandon traditional meritocratic and collegial governance to hunt money, prestige and a stronger brand. [...] Yet this conduct goes against fundamental values of academia — the careful scrutiny of all claims, and of the research (and teaching) portfolios of those making such claims. This core principle in the self-organization of the academic system (studied ...

 

Opinion: science in the age of selfies

  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 34. (23 August 2016), pp. 9384-9387, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609793113

Abstract

[Excerpt] [\n] [...] [\n] Here there is a paradox: Today, there are many more scientists, and much more money is spent on research, yet the pace of fundamental innovation, the kinds of theories and engineering practices that will feed the pipeline of future progress, appears, to some observers, including us, to be slowing [...]. Why might that be the case? [\n] One argument is that “theoretical models” may not even exist for some branches of science, at least not in the ...

 

Study contract concerning moral rights in the context of the exploitation of works through digital technology - Final report

  
No. ETD/99/B5-3000/E°28. (200)

Abstract

[Excerpt] According to the terms of Annexes III & IV of the contract n° ETD/99/B5-3000/E/28, the following parts of the study have been drafted : [::] analysis of the disparities in the legislation and case law of the several Member States concerning the protection of moral rights, in particular with respect to the specific characteristics of the digital exploitation of works [::] establishment of comparison tables describing the Member States’ applicable provisions in distinguishing between the several categories of works and the type of exploitation [::] analysis of ...

 

Reality check on reproducibility

  
Nature, Vol. 533, No. 7604. (25 May 2016), pp. 437-437, https://doi.org/10.1038/533437a

Abstract

A survey of Nature readers revealed a high level of concern about the problem of irreproducible results. Researchers, funders and journals need to work together to make research more reliable. [Excerpt] Is there a reproducibility crisis in science? Yes, according to the readers of Nature. Two-thirds of researchers who responded to a survey by this journal said that current levels of reproducibility are a major problem. [\n] [...] [\n] What does ‘reproducibility’ mean? Those who study the science of science joke that the definition ...

 

Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review

  
Science, Vol. 352, No. 6289. (26 May 2016), pp. 1067-1068, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6289.1067

Abstract

[Excerpt] Deeply rooted assumptions creep into decision-making in unrecognized ways—even among the most well-intentioned peer-reviewers, journal editors, and science funders—and that can prevent the best science from being sponsored or published, experts said at a recent AAAS forum on implicit bias. [\n] [...] [\n] Unconscious assumptions about gender, ethnicity, disabilities, nationality, and institutions clearly limit the science and technology talent pool and undermine scientific innovation, said AAAS Board Chair Geraldine Richmond. [...] [\n] The problem of implicit bias is not only about fairness, said ...

 

Implicit bias

  
Science, Vol. 352, No. 6289. (26 May 2016), pp. 1035-1035, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag1695

Abstract

[Excerpt] [...] To explore the extent of implicit bias in peer review, and what can be done to counter it, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science) recently convened a day-long forum of editors, publishers, funders, and experts on implicit bias in Washington, DC [...] [\n] [...] Scientific publishers such as the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) find that female authors are published either at a rate proportional to that at which ...

 

Sailing from the seas of chaos into the corridor of stability: practical recommendations to increase the informational value of studies

  
Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Vol. 9, No. 3. (01 May 2014), pp. 278-292, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528520

Abstract

Recent events have led psychologists to acknowledge that the inherent uncertainty encapsulated in an inductive science is amplified by problematic research practices. In this article, we provide a practical introduction to recently developed statistical tools that can be used to deal with these uncertainties when performing and evaluating research. In Part 1, we discuss the importance of accurate and stable effect size estimates as well as how to design studies to reach a corridor of stability around effect size estimates. In ...

 

The pressure to publish pushes down quality

  
Nature, Vol. 533, No. 7602. (11 May 2016), pp. 147-147, https://doi.org/10.1038/533147a

Abstract

Scientists must publish less, says Daniel Sarewitz, or good research will be swamped by the ever-increasing volume of poor work. [Excerpt] [\n] [...] [\n] Indeed, the widespread availability of bibliometric data from sources such as Elsevier, Google Scholar and Thomson Reuters ISI makes it easy for scientists (with their employers looking over their shoulders) to obsess about their productivity and impact, and to compare their numbers with those of other scientists. [\n] And if more is good, then the trends for science are favourable. The ...

 

(INRMM-MiD internal record) List of keywords of the INRMM meta-information database - part 28

  
(February 2014)
Keywords: inrmm-list-of-tags   power-law   ppm   practice   pre-alpine   pre-print   precaution   precaution-principle   precipitation   precisely-wrong   precursor-research   predation   predator-satiation   predatory-publishers   prediction   prediction-bias   predictive-modelling   predictors   predisposition   premature-optimization   preparedness   preprints   prescribed-burn   presence-absence   presence-only   pressure-volume-curves   pressures   prestoea-montana   pretreatment   prey-predator   pricing   primary-productivity   principal-components-regression   prisoners-dilemma   pristiphora-abietina   probability-vs-possibility   problem-driven   processes   processing   production-rules   productivity   programming   progressive-learning   prolog   proportion   prosopis-alba   prosopis-glandulosa   prosopis-pallida   protected-areas   protected-species   protection   protective-forest   protocol-uncertainty   provenance   provisioning-services   pruning   prunus-avium   prunus-cerasifera   prunus-domestica   prunus-dulcis   prunus-fruticosa   prunus-ilicifolia   prunus-laurocerasus   prunus-mahaleb   prunus-malaheb   prunus-padus   prunus-salicina   prunus-serotina   prunus-spinosa   prunus-spp   prunus-tenella   pseudo-absences   pseudo-random   pseudoaraucaria-spp   pseudolarix-spp   pseudomonas-avellanae   pseudomonas-spp   pseudomonas-syringae   pseudotsuga   pseudotsuga-macrocarpa   pseudotsuga-menziesii   pseudotsuga-spp   psychology   pterocarpus-indicus   pterocarpus-officinalis   pterocarya-pterocarpa   public-domain   publication-bias   publication-delay   publication-errors   publish-or-perish   puccinia-coronata   pull-push-pest-control   pulp   punica-granatum   purdiaea-nutans   pyrenees-region   pyrolysis   pyrus-amygdaliformis   pyrus-browiczii  

Abstract

List of indexed keywords within the transdisciplinary set of domains which relate to the Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management (INRMM). In particular, the list of keywords maps the semantic tags in the INRMM Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD). [\n] The INRMM-MiD records providing this list are accessible by the special tag: inrmm-list-of-tags ( http://mfkp.org/INRMM/tag/inrmm-list-of-tags ). ...

 

The unsung heroes of scientific software

  
Nature, Vol. 529, No. 7584. (4 January 2016), pp. 115-116, https://doi.org/10.1038/529115a

Abstract

Creators of computer programs that underpin experiments don’t always get their due — so the website Depsy is trying to track the impact of research code. [Excerpt] For researchers who code, academic norms for tracking the value of their work seem grossly unfair. They can spend hours contributing to software that underpins research, but if that work does not result in the authorship of a research paper and accompanying citations, there is little way to measure its impact. [\n] [...] Depsy’s creators hope that their ...

 

The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era

  
PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 6. (10 June 2015), e0127502, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Abstract

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows ...

Visual summary

 

Misplaced faith

  
Nature, Vol. 522, No. 7554. (2 June 2015), pp. 6-6, https://doi.org/10.1038/522006a

Abstract

The public trusts scientists much more than scientists think. But should it? [Excerpt] [... A] poll by Ipsos MORI this year showed that scientists are among the most trusted professionals in Britain; some nine in ten people said that they trust scientists to follow all of the research rules and regulations relevant to them. How many scientists would say the same? Not many, probably, of the attendees at this week’s 4th World Conference on Research Integrity in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As we ...

 

Wanted: information

  
Nature, Vol. 519, No. 7541. (4 March 2015), pp. 121-122, https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7541-121a

Abstract

Detailed career data will help people to plan for life after a PhD, say Viviane Callier and Nathan L. Vanderford. [Excerpt] Most students who enrol in US science and engineering PhD programmes hope to pursue an academic career. However, the gulf between the supply of newly minted PhDs and the availability of faculty positions widens each year. Some 36,000 people earned science and engineering PhDs in the United States in 2011, but US universities create only around 3,000 tenure-track positions annually. And ...

 

How many scientific papers are not original?

  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, No. 1. (06 January 2015), pp. 6-7, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422282112

Abstract

[Excerpt] Is plagiarism afflicting science? In PNAS, Citron and Ginsparg (1) count the number of authors who are submitting articles containing text already appearing elsewhere. They report disturbing numbers of authors resorting to copying, particularly in some countries where 15% of submissions are detected as containing duplicated material. I am on the editorial board of an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) magazine, which also finds it useful to run all of the submissions through a plagiarism filter. What can ...

 

Why null results rarely see the light of day

  
Science, Vol. 345, No. 6200. (29 August 2014), pp. 992-992, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6200.992

Abstract

A team at Stanford University reports online this week in Science that scientists are unlikely to even write up an experiment that produces so-called null results. A study of 221 survey-based experiments funded by the TESS (Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences) program at the National Science Foundation has found that almost two-thirds of the experiments yielding null findings are stuck in a file drawer rather than being submitted to a journal, and only 21% are published. In contrast, 96% of ...

 

Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research

  
Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20, No. 2. (17 May 2010), pp. 266-277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.006

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a case study analysis from the knowledge domains of vulnerability and resilience. We analyzed 20 scientific assessments to provide empirical evidence for successes and failures in collaborative knowledge production, i.e., the joint creation of assessments reports by researchers and decision makers in policy and practice. It became clear that the latter typically use insufficiently the research-based knowledge available and researchers typically produce insufficiently knowledge that is directly usable. We found a number of functional, structural, ...

 

The breeding of researchers

  
Nature, Vol. 470, No. 7334. (17 February 2011), pp. 1-1, https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7334-1

Abstract

[Excerpt] Like organisms filling a niche, postdocs need to adapt to their ecosystems if they want to survive and thrive. The qualities of the best among us depend in part on the pressures exerted by the academic system. But are these ecological pressures more likely to breed useful creatures or creepy monsters? ...

 

Not all plagiarism requires a retraction

  
Nature, Vol. 511, No. 7508. (9 July 2014), pp. 127-127, https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a

Abstract

Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being ...

 

Bibliometrics: the citation game

  
Nature, Vol. 510, No. 7506. (25 June 2014), pp. 470-471, https://doi.org/10.1038/510470a

Abstract

Jonathan Adams takes the measure of the uses and misuses of scholarly impact. ...

 

China's publication bazaar

  
Science, Vol. 342, No. 6162. (29 November 2013), pp. 1035-1039, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6162.1035

Abstract

Science has exposed a thriving academic black market in China involving shady agencies, corrupt scientists, and compromised editors—many of them operating in plain view. The commodity: papers in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Science Citation Index, Thomson Reuters' Social Sciences Citation Index, and Elsevier's Engineering Index. ...

 

Sabotaged scientist sues Yale and her lab chief

  
Science, Vol. 343, No. 6175. (07 March 2014), pp. 1065-1066, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.343.6175.1065

Abstract

Magdalena Koziol, a former postdoc at Yale University, was the victim of scientific sabotage. Now, she is suing the alleged perpetrator, who she claims poisoned her zebrafish, as well as her former boss at Yale, who she says became hostile and unsupportive after the sabotage was discovered, and Yale University. The complex case raises a host of questions about research sabotage, a type of misbehavior that some scientists believe is more common than the few known cases suggest. ...

 

Supply and demand: apply market forces to peer review

  
Nature, Vol. 506, No. 7488. (19 February 2014), pp. 295-295, https://doi.org/10.1038/506295b

Abstract

[excerpt] [...] When it comes to the highly skilled service of peer reviewing, the supply is sufficiently high to keep the monetary value at zero. If, at a constant level of demand, the supply is reduced, then this price would go up. With an increased price, people could become professional reviewers to supplement their salary. [...] ...

 

'Conferring authorship': Biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research

  
PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 9. (30 September 2013), pp. e76686-e76686, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076686

Abstract

Multi-collaborator research is increasingly becoming the norm in the field of biomedicine. With this trend comes the imperative to award recognition to all those who contribute to a study; however, there is a gap in the current âgold standardâ in authorship guidelines with regards to the efforts of those who provide high quality biosamples and data, yet do not play a role in the intellectual development of the final publication. We carried out interviews with 36 individuals working in, or with ...

 

Who's afraid of peer review?

  
Science (New York, N.Y.), Vol. 342, No. 6154. (04 October 2013), pp. 60-65, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Abstract

Dozens of open-access journals targeted in an elaborate Science sting accepted a spoof research article, raising questions about peer-review practices in much of the open-access world. ...

 

Equal opportunity metrics should benefit all researchers

  
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 28, No. 6. (June 2013), pp. 320-321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.03.007
 

Focusing on publication quality would benefit all researchers

  
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 28, No. 6. (June 2013), pp. 318-320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.03.004

Abstract

Highlights [::] Would focusing on publication quality favour female ecologists? [::] There is no difference between female versus male ecologists in the positive correlation between total (or average) number of citations and number of publications. [::] Thus, focusing on publication quality would benefit both female and male researchers. [::] To fix the still leaky pipeline in ecology, more radical action is needed. ...

 

Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank

  
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol. 7 (2013), https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

Abstract

Most researchers acknowledge an intrinsic hierarchy in the scholarly journals (“journal rank”) that they submit their work to, and adjust not only their submission but also their reading strategies accordingly. On the other hand, much has been written about the negative effects of institutionalizing journal rank as an impact measure. So far, contributions to the debate concerning the limitations of journal rank as a scientific impact assessment tool have either lacked data, or relied on only a few studies. In this ...

 

Scientific communication is down at the moment, please check again later

  
Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 3. (1 July 2012), pp. 267-270, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2012.699427

Abstract

Brian A. Nosek and Yoav Bar-Anan (this issue) offer a futuristic utopia on how scientific communication might work to the maximal benefit of science. I am highly sympathetic and even enthusiastic about the hallmarks of the changes that they propose. Their road map revolves around the principles of improving efficiency, transparency, openness, and maximal participation in the dissemination of scientific information. Almost all of the components of their utopia are in fact already applied or piloted in different scientific fields, so ...

 

Publishing: open to possibilities

  
Nature, Vol. 495, No. 7442. (27 March 2013), pp. 539-541, https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7442-539a

Abstract

Opting for open access means considering costs, journal prestige and career implications. ...

 

Science interminable: blame Ben?

  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110, No. 7. (12 February 2013), pp. 2428-2429, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.201300924

Abstract

Science is indeed interminable. Criticizing old ideas, coming up with new ones in an iterative process of creative destruction and reinvention is the spice of life for research. But there is another seemingly interminable aspect of science, at least in the biomedical arena, related to journal publication. When I was a postdoctoral fellow with Julius “Julie” Axelrod at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) circa 1963–1965, a typical postdoctoral fellow might write several papers in a year. While snail mail and ...

 

An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 102, No. 46. (07 November 2005), pp. 16569-16572, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

Abstract

I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number > or = h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher. ...

 

“3 . . 2 . . 1 . . Impact [Factor]: target [academic career] destroyed!”

  
Journal of Child Neurology, Vol. 27, No. 12. (01 December 2012), pp. 1565-1576, https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073812465014

Abstract

"Publish or perish" is the time-honored "principle" for academicians who race to accumulate lines under the "publications" section of a curriculum vitae. The original intent of publication-to inform others of findings and further scientific knowledge-has been corrupted by factors including (1) exponential growth of journals and the journal industry, fueled in part by intrusion of the Internet into all aspects of academic life; and (2) adoption of journal metrics (rather than written content) as the measure of scientific quality. The proprietary ...

This page of the database may be cited as:
Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management - Meta-information Database. http://mfkp.org/INRMM/tag/publish-or-perish

Publication metadata

Bibtex, RIS, RSS/XML feed, Json, Dublin Core

Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD).
This database integrates a dedicated meta-information database in CiteULike (the CiteULike INRMM Group) with the meta-information available in Google Scholar, CrossRef and DataCite. The Altmetric database with Article-Level Metrics is also harvested. Part of the provided semantic content (machine-readable) is made even human-readable thanks to the DCMI Dublin Core viewer. Digital preservation of the meta-information indexed within the INRMM-MiD publication records is implemented thanks to the Internet Archive.
The library of INRMM related pubblications may be quickly accessed with the following links.
Search within the whole INRMM meta-information database:
Search only within the INRMM-MiD publication records:
Full-text and abstracts of the publications indexed by the INRMM meta-information database are copyrighted by the respective publishers/authors. They are subject to all applicable copyright protection. The conditions of use of each indexed publication is defined by its copyright owner. Please, be aware that the indexed meta-information entirely relies on voluntary work and constitutes a quite incomplete and not homogeneous work-in-progress.
INRMM-MiD was experimentally established by the Maieutike Research Initiative in 2008 and then improved with the help of several volunteers (with a major technical upgrade in 2011). This new integrated interface is operational since 2014.