15 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2018
  2. Oct 2017
    1. Targeted calls and prizes could provide further motivation36,37, but supporters of research may need to earmark a percentage of all funding for capacity building if they wish to redress structural imbalances in biomedical knowledge generation and use.
    2. the true potential of data sharing. If that potential is to be achieved, the publication of papers in peer reviewed journals must lose their pre-eminence as a measure of scientific productivity in academia. We believe that depositing data in well-curated, quality-assured databases should be rewarded professionally just as publication of papers in high impact journals now is. The use of data in a pooled analysis that demonstrably changes policy should be rewarded at least as well as a citation in a journal.
    3. By adopting the study group model, which appealed to data contributors, WWARN was able simultaneously to build up the database and to begin to conduct important pooled analyses that have contributed directly to improvements in global policy.
    4. People who collect data must be incentivised to share it
  3. Apr 2017
    1.  The actual reward is easy, particularly if you consider it obtusely (and you should): developers are rewarded when actual requirements are satisfied on time in spite of not matching the original requirements.
  4. Oct 2016
    1. In general, humanities scholars have neglected editorial work because the reward structures in the academy have not favored editing but instead literary and cultural theory. Many academics fail to recognize the theoretical sophistication, historical knowledge, and analytical strengths necessary to produce a sound text or texts and the appropriate scholarly apparatus for a first-rate edition.

      Reasons why scholarly editions aren't valued in the academy (c 2008)

  5. Mar 2016
    1. Osuna, C., Crux-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menedez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects ofevaluation systems on publication performance.Scientometrics, 86, 575–592

      evaluation systems and publication performance

    1. The winner-take-all aspect of the priority rule has its drawbacks, however. It can encourage secrecy, sloppy practices, dishonesty and an excessive emphasis on surrogate measures of scientific quality, such as publication in high-impact journals. The editors of the journal Nature have recently exhorted scientists to take greater care in their work, citing poor reproducibility of published findings, errors in figures, improper controls, incomplete descriptions of methods and unsuitable statistical analyses as evidence of increasing sloppiness. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)As competition over reduced funding has increased markedly, these disadvantages of the priority rule may have begun to outweigh its benefits. Success rates for scientists applying for National Institutes of Health funding have recently reached an all-time low. As a result, we have seen a steep rise in unhealthy competition among scientists, accompanied by a dramatic proliferation in the number of scientific publications retracted because of fraud or error. Recent scandals in science are reminiscent of the doping problems in sports, in which disproportionately rich rewards going to winners has fostered cheating.

      How the priority rule is killing science.

    1. Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income

      On the incentives for journal editors to publish papers they think might improve IF... and how citations are gamed.

  6. Jun 2015
    1. Users earn points by doing things on the network — uploading, voting, referring, posting, or commenting about content. Users vote on whether they like content or not by swiping, with the most-liked content driven to the top of charts. You can post content to your entire Channel, which is Minds’ term for your fans. To post outside your Channel, you need to use points, like offering 10 of your points to another user for 10 views of your post on their Channel. Points can be also be exchanged with Minds for site-wide sharing.

      The absolute worst incentives. Engagement generates reach? This network is going to amplify the people who already participate the most. This is absolutely upside down. This is rewarding the powerful with more power.

  7. May 2014
    1. Usage-based pricing, where you pay for the capacity that you use, would properly incentivize ISPs to support net neutrality

      YES!!! And if people want to oppose this on the basis that Internet access is an important element of basic literacy then we can invest it in like we once did with libraries and public educational institutions. Subsidize access to reference websites, etc. The libraries of the future could be free, but you must pay for frivolous cat videos. I'm all for this.

  8. Feb 2014
    1. In addition to broad economic trends affecting domestic politics evenly, Fisher also notes the uneven distribution of effects stemming from intellectual property rights (1999, Sect. II. C.). The positive effects of intellectual property rights accrue strongl y to a small number of rights - holders (the paper assumes that there are no significant negative effects to rights - holders); for this reason, rights - holders have significant motive (and potentially greater means) to overcome the significant barriers to acti ve political lobbying.
  9. Jan 2014
    1. If federally funded research is going to broadly benefit society, it has to be widely accessible, not just to curious private citizens, but also to industries, private organizations, and federal, state, and local governments where scientific knowledge can help create new products, solve problems, educate students, and make policy decisions.

      It is The People who will most benefit from open access to federally funded research.

    2. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.