From MFKP_wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Selection: with tag science-ethics [at least 200 articles] 

 

Fears rise for US climate report as Trump officials take reins

  
Nature, Vol. 548, No. 7665. (1 August 2017), pp. 15-16, https://doi.org/10.1038/548015a

Abstract

Officials at the US Environmental Protection Agency are consulting global-warming sceptics as they weigh up a technical review. ...

 

Seven myths of risk

  
Risk Management In Risk Management, Vol. 7, No. 2. (01 April 2005), pp. 7-17, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240209

Abstract

Communication between experts and the public has turned out to be unusually difficult in the field of risk research. These difficulties are closely connected to a series of recalcitrant misconceptions of risk and its social preconditions. In this paper, seven of the most pernicious myths of risk are exposed, namely: first, that ‘risk’ must have a single, well-defined meaning; second, that the severity of risks should be judged according to probability-weighted averages of the severity of their outcomes; third, that decisions ...

 

Research on a razor's edge

  
Science, Vol. 356, No. 6342. (09 June 2017), pp. 1094-1094, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356.6342.1094

Abstract

[Excerpt] [...] Scientists in the United States face a shortage of tenure-track faculty jobs and fierce competition for a shrinking pool of grants. These dimming prospects reflect decades of underinvestment in the sciences. The current administration threatens to make things worse. We are all doing research on a razor's edge. [\n] It's no surprise that American scientists are becoming increasingly curious about opportunities elsewhere in the world. U.S. spending on research and development still ranks among the highest, but those who are ...

 

Do not publish

  
Science, Vol. 356, No. 6340. (25 May 2017), pp. 800-801, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1362

Abstract

Biologists have long valued publishing detailed information on rare and endangered species. Until relatively recently, much of this information was accessible only through accessing specialized scientific journals in university libraries. However, much of these data have been transferred online with the advent of digital platforms and a rapid push to open-access publication. Information is increasingly also available online in public reports and wildlife atlases, and research published behind paywalls can often be found in the public domain. Increased data and information ...

 

Escape from the impact factor

  
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1. (2008), pp. 5-7

Abstract

As Editor-in-Chief of the journal Nature, I am concerned by the tendency within academic administrations to focus on a journal’s impact factor when judging the worth of scientific contributions by researchers, affecting promotions, recruitment and, in some countries, financial bonuses for each paper. Our own internal research demonstrates how a high journal impact factor can be the skewed result of many citations of a few papers rather than the average level of the majority, reducing its value as an objective measure ...

 

Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results

  
PLOS ONE, Vol. 6, No. 11. (2 November 2011), e26828, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

Abstract

The widespread reluctance to share published research data is often hypothesized to be due to the authors' fear that reanalysis may expose errors in their work or may produce conclusions that contradict their own. However, these hypotheses have not previously been studied systematically. We related the reluctance to share research data for reanalysis to 1148 statistically significant results reported in 49 papers published in two major psychology journals. We found the reluctance to share data to be associated with weaker evidence ...

 

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, ...

 

Impact factors: no totum pro parte by skewness of citation

  
Cardiovascular Research, Vol. 61, No. 2. (01 February 2004), pp. 201-203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardiores.2003.11.023

Abstract

Citation of the various papers published in one and the same journal is highly skewed. Journals with a high impact factor obtain this high value by frequent citation of only a limited number of their papers and, on the other hand, journals with low impact factors publish many papers that remain uncited [1]. Thus, mere publication of a paper in a given journal cannot be regarded as a quality marker of that particular paper [2], it just means that the authors ...

 

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 ...

 

Post-normal institutional identities: quality assurance, reflexivity and ethos of care

  

Abstract

[Highlights] [::] Given the current crises of legitimacy and quality in mainstream science, institutions that produce and govern science and those that provide scientific advice to policy need to change their modus operandis; we advocate for an ethos of care. [::] Post-normal science and other frameworks of scientific knowledge production may inspire trustfulness in institutions that provide scientific advice to policy. [::] In Europe, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has the necessary scaffolding to advise policy in view of public interest, ...

 

Robots and free software

  
In A World with Robots, Vol. 84 (2017), pp. 63-76, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46667-5_5

Abstract

This article examines whether the arguments put forward by Free Software advocates in the context of computers also apply for robots. It summarises their key arguments and explores whether or not they appear transferable to robot cases. Doing so, it comes to the conclusion that, in the majority of cases, the reasons that may make the use of Free Software over proprietary software preferable in other technologies, equally apply in the case of robots. ...

 

Communication: science censorship is a global issue

  
Nature, Vol. 542, No. 7640. (08 February 2017), pp. 165-165, https://doi.org/10.1038/542165b

Abstract

[Excerpt] [...] Regrettably, suppression of public scientific information is already the norm, or is being attempted, in many countries [...]. We fear that such gagging orders could encourage senior bureaucrats to use funding as a tool with which to rein in academic freedoms. [...] The response of scientists to this type of coercion has been to share scientific information widely and openly using such legal means as social media to defend facts and transparency [...] ...

 

A manifesto for reproducible science

  
Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 1. (10 January 2017), 0021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Abstract

Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals ...

 

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)

Abstract

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, ...

 

When free software isn't (practically) superior

  
GNU Operating System (2011)

Abstract

[Excerpt] The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.” [\n] For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued against this “open source” characterization of the free software movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this framing because ...

 

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 ...

 

Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods

  
Science, Vol. 354, No. 6317. (09 December 2016), pp. 1240-1241, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6168

Abstract

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 ...

 

Theory of citing

  
In Handbook of Optimization in Complex Networks, Vol. 57 (11 Sep 2012), pp. 463-505, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0754-6_16

Abstract

We present empirical data on misprints in citations to twelve high-profile papers. The great majority of misprints are identical to misprints in articles that earlier cited the same paper. The distribution of the numbers of misprint repetitions follows a power law. We develop a stochastic model of the citation process, which explains these findings and shows that about 70-90% of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. Citation copying can explain not only why some misprints become popular, but also why some ...

 

Copyright contradictions in scholarly publishing

  
First Monday, Vol. 7, No. 11. (04 November 2002), 1006, https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006

Abstract

This paper examines contradictions in how copyright works with the publishing of scholarly journals. These contradictions have to do with the protection of the authors’ interest and have become apparent with the rise of open access publishing as an alternative to the traditional commercial model of selling journal subscriptions. Authors may well be better served, as may the public which supports research, by open access journals because of its wider readership and early indications of greater scholarly impact. This paper reviews ...

 

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 ...

 

Post-truth: a guide for the perplexed

  
Nature, Vol. 540, No. 7631. (28 November 2016), pp. 9-9, https://doi.org/10.1038/540009a

Abstract

If politicians can lie without condemnation, what are scientists to do? Kathleen Higgins offers some explanation. [Excerpt] The Oxford Dictionaries named ‘post-truth’ as their 2016 Word of the Year. It must sound alien to scientists. Science’s quest for knowledge about reality presupposes the importance of truth, both as an end in itself and as a means of resolving problems. How could truth become passé? [\n] [...] [\n] Post-truth refers to blatant lies being routine across society, and it means that politicians can lie without ...

 

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 ...

 

Welcome to postnormal times

  
Futures, Vol. 42, No. 5. (20 June 2010), pp. 435-444, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028

Abstract

All that was ‘normal’ has now evaporated; we have entered postnormal times, the in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have not yet emerged, and nothing really makes sense. To have any notion of a viable future, we must grasp the significance of this period of transition which is characterised by three c's: complexity, chaos and contradictions. These forces propel and sustain postnormal times leading to uncertainty and different types of ignorance that make decision-making problematic and increase risks ...

 

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 development of environmental thinking in economics

  
Environmental Values, Vol. 8, No. 4. (November 1999), pp. 413-435, https://doi.org/10.3197/096327199129341897

Abstract

There has always been a sub-group of established economists trying to convey an environmental critique of the mainstream. This paper traces their thinking into the late 20th century via the development of associations and journals in the USA and Europe. There is clearly a divergence between the conformity to neo-classical economics favoured by resource and environmental economists and the acceptance of more radical critiques apparent in ecological economics. Thus, the progressive elements of ecological economics are increasingly incompatible with those practising ...

 

The trouble with negative emissions

  
Science, Vol. 354, No. 6309. (14 October 2016), pp. 182-183, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567

Abstract

In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of “negative emissions,” the ...

 

Measuring scientific impact beyond citation counts

  
D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 22, No. 9/10. (September 2016), https://doi.org/10.1045/september2016-patton

Abstract

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

  
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 ...

 

ePiX tutorial and reference manual

  
(2008)

Abstract

[Excerpt: Introduction] ePiX, a collection of batch utilities, creates mathematically accurate figures, plots, and animations containing LATEX typography. The input syntax is easy to learn, and the user interface resembles that of LATEX itself: You prepare a scene description in a text editor, then “compile” the input file into a picture. LATEX- and web-compatible output types include a LATEX picture-like environment written with PSTricks, tikz, or eepic macros; vector images (eps, ps, and pdf); and bitmapped images and movies (png, mng, and gif). [\n] ePiX’s strengths include: [::] Quality of ...

 

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 ...

 

How to review a paper

  

Abstract

[Excerpt] As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. It’s an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end. As a range ...

 

More accountability for big-data algorithms

  
Nature, Vol. 537, No. 7621. (21 September 2016), pp. 449-449, https://doi.org/10.1038/537449a

Abstract

To avoid bias and improve transparency, algorithm designers must make data sources and profiles public. [Excerpt] [...] Algorithms, from the simplest to the most complex, follow sets of instructions or learn to accomplish a goal. In principle, they could help to make impartial analyses and decisions by reducing human biases and prejudices. But there is growing concern that they risk doing the opposite, and will replicate and exacerbate human failings [...]. And in an era of powerful computers, machine learning and big data, ...

 

Who is accountable?

  
Nature, Vol. 450, No. 7166. (31 October 2007), pp. 1-1, https://doi.org/10.1038/450001a

Abstract

How the responsibilities of co-authors for a scientific paper's integrity could be made more explicit. ...

 

Does background matter? Disciplinary perspectives on sustainable forest management

  
Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 23, No. 14. (2014), pp. 3373-3389, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0816-1

Abstract

Although sustainable forest management (SFM) has become increasingly popular during recent decades, approaches towards it are still imprecise and lack consistency. Within this “chaos”, scientists are increasingly expected to further develop the concept across disciplinary boundaries, including normative statements relating to the future. However, we assume that disciplinary boundaries in the construction of SFM still exist due to prevalent interests and political intentions within scientific communities. Therefore, our aim is to analyse and explain qualitative differences in the construction of SFM ...

 

Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences

  
Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 9. (May 2010), pp. 1458-1465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.013

Abstract

Despite attempts at clear direction in international, national and journal guidelines, attribution of authorship can be a confusing area for both new and established researchers. As journal articles are valuable intellectual property, authorship can be hotly contested. Individual authors' responsibilities for the integrity of article content have not been well explored. Semi-structured interviews (n = 17) were conducted with staff, student advocates and doctoral candidates working in health research in two universities in Australia. Stratified sampling ensured participants reflected a range of experience ...

 

Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship

  
Accountability in Research, Vol. 18, No. 2. (9 March 2011), pp. 76-90, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2011.557297

Abstract

Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship?the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria?has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general ...

 

Academic authorship: who, why and in what order?

  
Health Renaissance, Vol. 11, No. 2. (19 June 2013), https://doi.org/10.3126/hren.v11i2.8214

Abstract

We are frequently asked by our colleagues and students for advice on authorship for scientific articles. This short paper outlines some of the issues that we have experienced and the advice we usually provide. This editorial follows on from our work on submitting a paper1 and also on writing an academic paper for publication.2 We should like to start by noting that, in our view, there exist two separate, but related issues: (a) authorship and (b) order of authors. The issue of authorship centres on the notion of who can be ...

 

Why scientists must share their research code

  
Nature (13 September 2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20504

Abstract

'Reproducibility editor' Victoria Stodden explains the growing movement to make code and data available to others. [Excerpt] [...] [::What does computational reproducibility mean?] It means that all details of computation — code and data — are made routinely available to others. If I can run your code on your data, then I can understand what you did. We need to expose all the steps that went into any discovery that relies on a computer. [::What’s the scientific value of running the same data with the ...

 

Scientific advances: fallacy of perfection harms peer review

  
Nature, Vol. 537, No. 7618. (31 August 2016), pp. 34-34, https://doi.org/10.1038/537034a

Abstract

[Excerpt] [...] The history of science has taught us that most progress has come from exploring flawed hypotheses and imperfect models. We must always strive for the better study, the better model, the better analysis. As experienced reviewers, however, we contend that seeking ultimate perfection is not the same as accepting nothing less here and now. Scientific progress depends on such compromise — provided that potential caveats are recognized. [\n] If a model is the most technically and ethically feasible approach available, ...

 

Transparency in ecology and evolution: real problems, real solutions

  
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 31, No. 9. (September 2016), pp. 711-719, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.002

Abstract

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 ...

 

Stop ignoring misconduct

  
Nature, Vol. 537, No. 7618. (1 September 2016), pp. 29-30, https://doi.org/10.1038/537029a

Abstract

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 ...

 

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

  
Nature, Vol. 533, No. 7604. (25 May 2016), pp. 452-454, https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Abstract

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research. [Excerpt] More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. [\n] The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than ...

 

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 ...

 

Modelling as a discipline

  
International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 30, No. 3. (1 January 2001), pp. 261-282, https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070108960709

Abstract

Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of all scientific, and indeed all intellectual, activity. How then can we treat it as a separate discipline? The answer is that the professional modeller brings special skills and techniques to bear in order to produce results that are insightful, reliable, and useful. Many of these techniques can be taught formally, such as sophisticated statistical methods, computer simulation, systems identification, and sensitivity analysis. These are valuable tools, but they are not as important as ...

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

Result page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next

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.