Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research Citation Statistics A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)
http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using “simple and objective” methods is increasingly prevalent today. The “simple and objective” methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded.
Best Current Practices for Journals, http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CEIC/bestpractice/bpfinal.pdf is a document endorsed by the IMU General Assembly on 16 August 2010.
Solomon, David J.; Laakso, Mikael; Björk, Bo-Christer, Converting scholarly journals to open access: A review of approaches and experiences, link
MathOverflow when-should-a-supervisor-be-a-co-author
wikipedia: least publishable unit, publication bias
Nature Materials editorial: The cost of salami slicing
UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Scientific Publications: Free for all? Tenth Report of Session 2003-04, Volume I: Report, pdf
DORA (earlier link, The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals; Elsevier’s standpoint on DORA
Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler, Nefarious numbers, AMS Notices, arxiv/1010.0278
Arnold-Fowler also prompted
Impact factor engineerings on P. Cameron’s blog: the action of the Goodhart’s law (cf. also here)
Gillespie’s blog, impact factors for statistical journals
Reciprocal Space blog sick of impact factors
Ulrich Pöschl, Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2012 doi
The question how to balance the weight which in academic evaluation is taken by traditional publishing with less conventional forms of academic record (e.g. work exposed in blogs) is studied in
Other
Guardian: Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist html
Joan S. Birman, Scientific publishing: A mathematician’s viewpoint, Notices AMS, pdf
G. Kuperberg et al., Mathematical journals should be electronic and free(ly) accessible, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 45 (1998), 845, pdf
Richard Poynder and his blog on academic publishing – focusing on open access
The Cost of Knowledge Researchers taking a stand against Elsevier; and the statement pdf
Gowers’ weblog: elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall and list of Elsevier’s journals
COAR:petition against Elsevier’s sharing policy, in wake of retarded changes of April 30, 2015 by Elsevier
Gowers: a more modest proposal – a system to cooperate on suggestions to improve preprints
Donald Knuth‘s letter of resignation to Journal of Algorithms, Oct 2003
Rob Kirby’s list of pricing 128 math journals 1995-1999
The crisis in scientific publishing links at Univ. of Maryland
John Baez at Café: Journal Publishers Hire the “Pit Bull of PR” (2007)
Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC: prime time for public access
MathOverflow publishing-journals-articles-without-transferring-copyright, how-to-select-a-journal
Oleg Pikhurko’s experience: html
Wikipedia Copyright, copyright law, intellectual property activism, anti-copyright, free and open source software, SOPA, Creative Commons, , Aaron Swartz
Huffingpost, Library.nu, Book Downloading Site, Targeted In Injunctions Requested By 17 Publishers and AAP statement
Chris Lee, Open peer review by a selected-papers network (and accompanying Forum thread)
For links to mathematical blogging see math blogs.
Wolfram Neubauer, A thorn in the side for science publishers, html – Elsevier, Springer and Thieme in a complaint against the electronic document delivery at ETH-Bibliothek; comments at Math2.0
Access Copyright — paid faculty email surveillance in Canada. See “backgrounder” pdf and Math2.0 discussion
J. M. Chambers, Agnes M. Herzberg, A note on the game of refereeing, J. Royal Statistical Soc. C (Applied Statistics) 17, No. 3 (1968), 260-263, jstor
Rob Kirby, Wither Journals?, Notices AMS 59:9, 1272–1274, October 2012
2012 letters from Elsevier to the math community and the free journal access page
Democracy and Mathematics – an Café post by André Joyal; related Joyal’s comment at Math2.0
Gowers announcing Episciences Project, blog from Jan 16, 2013
Nature about Episciences Project: mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing
Open Access Explained (youtube movie 8 min)
ContributionEconomy blog about knowledge creation and diffusion
Aaron Schwartz: Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, Chronicle: Aaron Schwartz was right
B. Brembs, M. Munafò, Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank, arxiv/1301.3748
Ian Sample (Guardian), Universities ‘get poor value’ from academic journal-publishing firms
EU documents, on EU copyright reform. Report on responses pdf
Julia Reda, the-european-copyright-divide
The Charleston Advisor (according to wikipedia) peer-reviewed publication that reviews proprietary and free Internet resources that libraries license and make available to their patrons; the journal self-defines its content as “The critical reviews of web products for information professionals”
Elbakyan story, SciHub pseudopiracy
Repository aligning between OpenAIRE and LA Referencia: a landmark agreement
JISC, SCONUL, RLUK, ARMA: Academic journal markets, their limitations, and the consequences for a transition to Open Access: a thought piece
“This document is prompted by a shared concern among professionals in universities, that the current transition to OA is both too slow and too expensive, and furthermore that the transition on its current path risks replicating unsatisfactory aspects of the subscription journal market.”
the reaction by The Publishers Association: The Role Of Hybrid Journals In Supporting Open Access (pdf)
J. Pittman, C. Lynch, Planning a 21st century global library for mathematics research, Notices AMS pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone
D. Lemire, Professors intentionally slow down science to make themselves look better, blog post
Law MR1, Kawasumi Y, Morgan SG. Despite law, fewer than one in eight completed studies of drugs and biologics are reported on time on ClinicalTrials.gov, Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2338-45 pubmed doi
Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access, A Max Planck Digital Library Open Access Policy White Paper, pdf
John Bohannon, Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone, Science, 28 April 2016, link
J. Belluze et al. The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists, Sep 2016, vox.com
David Mumford, Wake up, 2015, html
S. Ribault, Physical Review Letters: physics’ luxury journal, blog
P. Sorokowski et al. Predatory journals recruit fake editor, Nature 543:7646, Comments, pdf
Open access will remain a half revolution, interview with Richard Poynder otwartanauka.pl
Livia Puljak, zasto-znanstvenici-skrivaju-svoje-podatke
Center for open science, www.cos.io
retraction watch blog; 2022 report
MathGen paper accepted: http://aperiodical.com/2012/10/advances-in-pure-nonsense, http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102, http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/10/17/paul-taylor/stochastically-orthogonal
the high court decision (Mrs Justice Sharp) Nature vs. El Naschie case pdf
Vice chancellor in Pakistan sues researcher whose work he plagiarized
Science: Sting - exposes wilde west in open access publishing; interactive journal chart
Michael Eisen, blog: I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals
J. Vibration and Control – fraudulent referree ring found using SAGE system, retraction watch, wash post, follow up
oxford-group-reverses-authorship-requirements-for-sharing-data-after-questions-from-retraction-watch
Timothy H. Vines et al. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age, Current Biology 24:1, (2014) 94–97 doi
J. M. Wicherts, D. Borsboom, J. Kats, D. Molenaar, The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis, Am. Psychol. 61 (2006) 726–728
Open Science Collaboration, Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science, Science 349:6251 (2015) aac4716 doi
John P. A. Ioannidis, Why most published research findings are false, PLOS, August 30, 2005, doi
Eliezer Yudkowsky, Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks, in: Global Catastrophic Risks (edited by N. Bostrom & M. M. Ćirković) 91–119 pdf
Nidhi Subbaraman, The band of debunkers busting bad scientists, The Wall Street J., Sept. 24, 2023
While in court it is easier to win if somebody had a prior registration of copyright in a copyright office, in principle most of the copyright laws and patent laws in provable cases give advantage to the factual priority of the work, even if not registered. That is, every author’s work is a priori protected from the moment of creation; the registration at a copyright office just makes it easier to prove the priority in disputes.
According to some historians and anti-copyright activists, the copyright in the 19th and early 20th centuries mainly worked for the authors, while today it is structured in a way which protects mainly the publishers and less the authors. In particular, often the authors loose battles with their own publishers in attempts to make parts of their work free or published in a form which they prefer.
Last revised on September 27, 2023 at 09:43:40. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.