Blog
About

52
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found
      Is Open Access

      Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

          Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A manifesto for reproducible science

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Who's afraid of peer review?

               John Bohannon (2013)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Publications
                Publications
                MDPI AG
                2304-6775
                June 2019
                May 13 2019
                : 7
                : 2
                : 34
                10.3390/publications7020034
                © 2019

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                Product
                Self URI (article page): https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/34

                Comments

                Comment on this article