4 Matching Annotations
- Apr 2017
-
bjoern.brembs.net bjoern.brembs.net
-
How will flipping to a different business model address our need for a sustainable infrastructure covering our data and code, at the same time as it is addressing this (non-exhaustive) list of missing/lacking functionalities in our scholarly literature? Link-rot No scientific impact analysis Lousy peer-review No global search No functional hyperlinks Useless data visualization No submission standards (Almost) no statistics No content-mining No effective way to sort, filter and discover No semantic enrichment No networking feature
Good points raised by Bjoern Brembs on what the scholarly communication system is lacking at the moment.
-
- Mar 2017
-
www.nature.com www.nature.com
-
“Simply giving people an affiliation and an e-mail address means that when they submit a paper to a journal or a conference, it will get read and their work will have a shot at surviving on its own merits,
It is a shame this is true and it is wholly nonsensical: an affiliation should not be a prerequisite to being taken serious.
-
-
www.collabra.org www.collabra.org
-
these forensic tools are useful in the absence of transparency, but they are no substitute for it.
Simine gets it right AGAIN!
-
There is, of course, the risk that we will go too far in the other direction and impose so many burdens on scientists to make everything transparent that science will grind to a halt (Lewandowsky & Bishop, 2016).
I think transparency will only alleviate the burden. What is now often seen as "additional burden" is actually similar to not putting depreciation costs on the books and having to retroactively. The costs are made (e.g., data needs to be documented properly) but not put into the books (e.g., not actually documented during but only when requested).
Tags
Annotators
URL
-