Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherDOAJ
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.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 6

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

      Who's afraid of peer review?

       John Bohannon (2013)
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: found
        Is Open Access

        The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science

        A focus on novel, confirmatory, and statistically significant results leads to substantial bias in the scientific literature. One type of bias, known as “p-hacking,” occurs when researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant. Here, we use text-mining to demonstrate that p-hacking is widespread throughout science. We then illustrate how one can test for p-hacking when performing a meta-analysis and show that, while p-hacking is probably common, its effect seems to be weak relative to the real effect sizes being measured. This result suggests that p-hacking probably does not drastically alter scientific consensuses drawn from meta-analyses.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

          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 that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ] retired
            [2 ] Jordan University of Science and Technology
            Journal
            KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry
            Hungarian Communication Studies Association
            01 May 2016
            : 4
            : 1
            : 84-88
            a84f8ab56fa942628ebeeb6c510ad2af
            10.17646/KOME.2016.16

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            Categories
            Communication. Mass media
            P87-96

            Comments

            Comment on this article