From MFKP_wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Selection: with tag rewarding-best-research-practices [30 articles] 


Has artificial intelligence become alchemy?

Science, Vol. 360, No. 6388. (04 May 2018), pp. 478-478,


Ali Rahimi, a researcher in artificial intelligence (AI) at Google in San Francisco, California, has charged that machine learning algorithms, in which computers learn through trial and error, have become a form of "alchemy." Researchers, he says, do not know why some algorithms work and others don't, nor do they have rigorous criteria for choosing one AI architecture over another. Now, in a paper presented on 30 April at the International Conference on Learning Representations in Vancouver, Canada, Rahimi and his ...


Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 115, No. 11. (13 February 2018), pp. 2557-2560,


In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) ( methodology for attributing ...


Transparent author credit

Science, Vol. 359, No. 6379. (01 March 2018), pp. 961-961,


Authorship on papers is one of the major currencies of the scientific enterprise. Nevertheless, the contributions of different authors to a given paper have remained relatively opaque. Contributions are generally inferred from the order of authors, and implications of position on the authorship list vary between different investigators and scientific fields. A year ago, a group of editors and publishers across a wide range of disciplines met to discuss how to provide a more systemic solution to make author contributions more ...


Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics

Nature, Vol. 544, No. 7651. (26 April 2017), pp. 411-412,


[Excerpt] [...] Although journal impact factors (JIFs) were developed to assess journals and say little about any individual paper, reviewers routinely justify their evaluations on the basis of where candidates have published. [...] As economists who study science and innovation, we see engrained processes working against cherished goals. Scientists we interview routinely say that they dare not propose bold projects for funding in part because of expectations that they will produce a steady stream of papers in journals with high impact ...


Boss competence and worker well-being

ILR Review, Vol. 70, No. 2. (March 2017), pp. 419-450,


Nearly all workers have a supervisor or “boss.” Yet little is known about how bosses influence the quality of employees’ lives. This study offers new evidence. First, the authors find that a boss’s technical competence is the single strongest predictor of a worker’s job satisfaction. Second, they demonstrate using longitudinal data, after controlling for fixed-effects, that even if a worker stays in the same job and workplace, a rise in the competence of a supervisor is associated with an improvement in ...


Attempts to manufacture scientific discovery

Nature, Vol. 94, No. 2358. (7 January 1915), pp. 512-512,


[Excerpt] In an excellent article forming one of his admirable series of essays entitled “Science from an Easy-chair,” published in the Daily Telegraph of December 15, 1914, Sir Ray Lankester deals particularly with the case of the recent proposal that the Lister Institute should be handed over to the Medical Research Committee of the National Insurance Commission. The proposal was rejected on November 18 by the votes of the members; and Sir Ray Lankester preaches a useful sermon upon this text. ...


Corporate culture: protect idea factories

Nature, Vol. 543, No. 7646. (22 March 2017), pp. 491-491,


[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 ...


A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers

bioRxiv (19 January 2017), 100784,


This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly publishers to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP) [1], a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies. It was developed by the Publishers Early Adopters Expert Group as part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project, an initiative of and the NIH BioCADDIE program. The structure of the roadmap presented here follows the “life of a paper” workflow and includes the categories Pre-submission, Submission, Production, ...


Position paper for the endorsement of Free Software and Open Standards in Horizon 2020 and all publicly-funded research

In Free Software Foundation Europe (January 2017)


The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charity that empowers users to control technology by advocating for Free Software. In a digital world, Free Software is the fundament of Open Knowledge, Open Innovation and Open Science. [\n] Software is an integral part of today’s society. Our daily interactions, transactions, education, communication channels, work and life environments rely heavily on software. "Free Software" refers to all programs distributed under terms and licences that allow users to run the software for any purpose, ...


Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly

Genome Biology, Vol. 16, No. 1. (8 December 2015), 274,


And so, my fellow scientists: ask not what you can do for reproducibility; ask what reproducibility can do for you! Here, I present five reasons why working reproducibly pays off in the long run and is in the self-interest of every ambitious, career-oriented scientist. [Excerpt] [::Reproducibility: what's in it for me?] In this article, I present five reasons why working reproducibly pays off in the long run and is in the self-interest of every ambitious, career-oriented scientist. [::] Reason number 1: reproducibility helps to avoid ...


Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods

Science, Vol. 354, No. 6317. (09 December 2016), pp. 1240-1241,


Over the past two decades, computational methods have radically changed the ability of researchers from all areas of scholarship to process and analyze data and to simulate complex systems. But with these advances come challenges that are contributing to broader concerns over irreproducibility in the scholarly literature, among them the lack of transparency in disclosure of computational methods. Current reporting methods are often uneven, incomplete, and still evolving. We present a novel set of Reproducibility Enhancement Principles (REP) targeting disclosure challenges ...


Trusting others to ‘do the math’

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 4. (2 October 2015), pp. 376-392,


Researchers effectively trust the work of others anytime they use software tools or custom software. In this article I explore this notion of trusting others, using Digital Humanities as a focus, and drawing on my own experience. Software is inherently flawed and limited, so when its use in scholarship demands better practices and terminology, to review research software and describe development processes. It is also important to make research software engineers and their work more visible, both for the purposes of ...


Ethics among scholars in academic publishing

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


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 ...


Measuring scientific impact beyond citation counts

D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 22, No. 9/10. (September 2016),


The measurement of scientific progress remains a significant challenge exasperated by the use of multiple different types of metrics that are often incorrectly used, overused, or even explicitly abused. Several metrics such as h-index or journal impact factor (JIF) are often used as a means to assess whether an author, article, or journal creates an "impact" on science. Unfortunately, external forces can be used to manipulate these metrics thereby diluting the value of their intended, original purpose. This work highlights these ...


The Natural Selection of Bad Science

Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 3, No. 9. (31 September 2016), 160384,


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 ...


The hard road to reproducibility

Science, Vol. 354, No. 6308. (07 October 2016), pp. 142-142,


[Excerpt] [...] A couple years ago, we published a paper applying computational fluid dynamics to the aerodynamics of flying snakes. More recently, I asked a new student to replicate the findings of that paper, both as a training opportunity and to help us choose which code to use in future research. Replicating a published study is always difficult—there are just so many conditions that need to be matched and details that can't be overlooked—but I thought this case was relatively straightforward. ...


Open data: curation is under-resourced

Nature, Vol. 538, No. 7623. (05 October 2016), pp. 41-41,


[Excerpt] Science funders and researchers need to recognize the time, resources and effort required to curate open data [...]. There is no reliable business model to finance the curation and maintenance of data repositories. [...] Curation is not fully automated for most data types. This means that — in the life sciences, for example — many popular databases must resort to time-consuming manual curation to check data quality, reliability, provenance, format and metadata [...]. To make open data effective as a ...


Transparency in ecology and evolution: real problems, real solutions

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 31, No. 9. (September 2016), pp. 711-719,


To make progress scientists need to know what other researchers have found and how they found it. However, transparency is often insufficient across much of ecology and evolution. Researchers often fail to report results and methods in detail sufficient to permit interpretation and meta-analysis, and many results go entirely unreported. Further, these unreported results are often a biased subset. Thus the conclusions we can draw from the published literature are themselves often biased and sometimes might be entirely incorrect. Fortunately there ...


Archiving primary data: solutions for long-term studies

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 30, No. 10. (2015), pp. 581-589,


The recent trend for journals to require open access to primary data included in publications has been embraced by many biologists, but has caused apprehension amongst researchers engaged in long-term ecological and evolutionary studies. A worldwide survey of 73 principal investigators (Pls) with long-term studies revealed positive attitudes towards sharing data with the agreement or involvement of the PI, and 93% of PIs have historically shared data. Only 8% were in favor of uncontrolled, open access to primary data while 63% ...


Stop ignoring misconduct

Nature, Vol. 537, No. 7618. (1 September 2016), pp. 29-30,


Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat, argue Donald S. Kornfeld and Sandra L. Titus. [Excerpt: Preventing misconduct] To diminish the threat that misconduct poses to science, scientists and society: [::] Authorities should acknowledge that deliberate misconduct is an important contributor to irreproducibility. [::] Mentors should be evaluated to assure quality; those who contribute to misconduct should be penalized. [::] Institutions and government agencies should have procedures to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. [::] Senior faculty members who are found guilty of ...


The past, present and future of the PhD thesis

Nature, Vol. 535, No. 7610. (6 July 2016), pp. 7-7,


Writing a PhD thesis is a personal and professional milestone for many researchers. But the process needs to change with the times. [Excerpt] According to one of those often-quoted statistics that should be true but probably isn’t, the average number of people who read a PhD thesis all the way through is 1.6. And that includes the author. More interesting might be the average number of PhD theses that the typical scientist — and reader of Nature — has read from start ...


Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency

PLoS Biology, Vol. 14, No. 5. (12 May 2016), e1002456,


Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among ...


(INRMM-MiD internal record) List of keywords of the INRMM meta-information database - part 34

(February 2014)
Keywords: inrmm-list-of-tags   record-to-update-or-delete   recreation   red-list   redd   redistributable-scientific-information   reference-manual   reforestation   refugia   regeneration   regime-shift   regional-climate   regional-climate-models   regional-scale   regression   regression-tree-analysis   regulating-services   reinforcement   reinforcement-learning   reinventing-weels   reiteration   relative-distance-similarity   relative-distance-similarity-ancillary   remote-sensing   renewable-energy   renewable-energy-directive   repeatability   repellent-species   replicability   reporting   representative-concentration-pathways   reproducibility   reproducible-research   reproduction   reproductive-effort   reptiles   resampling   research-funding   research-funding-vs-public-outcome   research-management   research-metrics   research-team-size   reservoir-management   reservoir-services   resilience   resilience-vs-resistance   resilience-vs-risk-management   resin   resistance   resources-exploitation   respiration   restoration   resurvey-of-semi-permanent   retraction   review   review-publication   review-scopus-european-biodiversity-indicators   revision-control-system   rewarding-best-research-practices   rhamnus-cathartica   rhamnus-catharticus   rhamnus-frangula   rhamnus-imeretina   rhamnus-saxatilis   rhamnus-spp   rhizophagus-grandis   rhizophora-apiculata   rhizophora-mangle   rhododendron-arboreum   rhododendron-caucasicum   rhododendron-ferrugineum   rhododendron-periclymenoides   rhododendron-ponticum   rhododendron-smirnowii   rhododendron-spp   rhododendron-ungernii   rhododendron-viscosum   rhopalicus-tutela   rhus-spp   rhus-typhina   rhyacionia-bouliana   rhyacionia-buoliana   rhyacionia-frustrana   rhynchophorus-ferrugineus   rhyssa-persuasoria   rhytisma   ribes-alpinum   ribes-rubrum   ribes-uva-crispa   rice   ring-analysis   ring-width-chronologies   ringspot-virus   riparian-ecosystem   riparian-forest   riparian-zones   risk-analysis   risk-assessment   risk-management   risk-reduction  


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 ( ). ...


Extramural work: to serve or not to serve

Nature, Vol. 523, No. 7562. (29 July 2015), pp. 627-629,


[Excerpt] When committees come knocking, scientists need to know which requests will benefit them and which will only steal their time nd how to tell the difference. Anastasia Ailamaki fondly remembers her first experience serving on a grant-application review committee for the US National Science Foundation [...] She credits it with helping her to prepare her own successful application for an NSF early-career-development grant. [\n] But like many researchers, Ailamaki has at times been overloaded with requests for her service. “First reaction ...


Retraction challenges

Nature, Vol. 514, No. 7520. (1 October 2014), pp. 5-5,


[Excerpt] A key responsibility of any journal is to correct erroneous information that it has published, and as quickly as possible. [\n] Easily said! It is straightforward enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it becomes clear after publication that the conclusions are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate — and things can then get a lot more challenging. [...] [\n] That is why the literature of retractions in high-impact journals might be skewed towards misconduct that has been proved through ...


Outstanding reviewers for environmental modelling and software in 2007

Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 23, No. 12. (December 2008), 1343,


[Excerpt] In recognition of our reviewers and to encourage high standards of constructive assessment in the journal, the Editors of EMS have instituted ‘Outstanding Reviewer Awards.’ These awards will be made annually through consultation among the Editors. The criteria for awards are based on constructiveness and depths of reviews, with some weight being given also to the number of reviews undertaken, as well as the turnaround time for the reviews. In any 1 year, a minimum of two reviews is required. ...


Outstanding reviewers for environmental modelling and software in 2008

Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 24, No. 10. (October 2009), pp. 1137-1138,


[Excerpt] Established in 2007, the ‘Outstanding Reviewer Awards’ are being presented annually to recognize the dedication and efforts of our reviewers and to encourage high standards of constructive assessment in the journal. In 2008, 723 reviewers graciously offered their expertise to provide the editors with their professional advice on the scientific merit of works submitted to the journal. Ten awardees were shortlisted through consultation among the Editors, who considered the constructiveness and depths of reviews, the number of reviewers performed and ...


Outstanding reviewers for Environmental Modelling and Software in 2009

Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 25, No. 10. (October 2010), 1063,


[Excerpt] Reviewers are key to the quality of Environmental Modelling and Software. They provide their advice, expertise and professional opinion on papers submitted to the journal to help ensure scientific rigour and validity in the works published. In 2009, 646 reviewers graciously provided their time and effort to the journal, and of these ten have been shortlisted to receive ‘Outstanding Reviewer Awards’. These awards are presented annually to recognize the dedication of those reviewers and to encourage high standards of constructive ...


Outstanding reviewers for Environmental Modelling and Software in 2013

Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 57 (July 2014), pp. iii-iv,


[Excerpt] Reviewers play a crucial role in helping the journal maintain its position as a leader in environmental modelling and software methodology by ensuring the high quality of its publications. We are grateful to each and every one of the 1152 reviewers who dedicated their time and expertise to the journal in 2013. In particular, we recognize the exceptional contributions made by our ‘Reviewer of the Year’ Gerry Laniak and the ten ‘Outstanding Reviewer Award’ recipients, listed below. These awardees were ...


Outstanding reviewers for Environmental Modelling and Software in 2010

Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 31 (May 2012), pp. 1-2,


[Excerpt] Environmental Modelling and Software’s high reputation would not be possible without the support from our reviewers who dedicate their expertise and time to help ensure the works published meet our high standard of scientific rigour and utility. In 2010, the journal was supported by 804 reviewers whose time and efforts are very much appreciated. While we are very grateful to every single one of our reviewers, we have shortlisted ten to receive Outstanding Reviewer Awards which recognize the considerable commitment ...

This page of the database may be cited as:
Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management - Meta-information Database.

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.