DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Open Science a Reality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making Open Science a Reality MAKING OPEN SCIENCE A REALITY 1 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United Sates. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. © OECD 2015 The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. Photo credits: Cover © Getty Images International 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................... 5 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 The rationale for open science ................................................................................................................... 10 Key actors in open science ......................................................................................................................... 12 Policy trends in open science ..................................................................................................................... 13 Main findings and policy messages ........................................................................................................... 14 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER ONE THE RATIONALES AND THE IMPACTS OF OPEN SCIENCE: AN OVERVIEW ... 18 Accessing scientific publications ............................................................................................................... 20 Accessing data ........................................................................................................................................... 26 “Altmetrics”, an alternative way to measure scientific impact .................................................................. 28 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER TWO OPEN ACCESS TO SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ..................................................... 36 Defining open access ................................................................................................................................. 36 Open access publishing and IP protection ................................................................................................. 41 Open access publishing and its legal implications ..................................................................................... 48 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER THREE OPEN RESEARCH DATA .......................................................................................... 53 Data-driven scientific research .................................................................................................................. 53 Defining open data ..................................................................................................................................... 56 Data sharing: challenges and opportunities ............................................................................................... 58 Data protection frameworks in OECD countries ....................................................................................... 63 Unsolved legal issues: public-private partnerships and text and data mining............................................ 67 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 69 3 CHAPTER FOUR THE GOVERNANCE OF OPEN SCIENCE: ACTORS, TRENDS AND POLICIES . 73 The key actors ............................................................................................................................................ 73 Open science and citizen involvement ....................................................................................................... 86 Governance of open science: Recent policy trends ................................................................................... 88 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 102 4 FOREWORD Science is the mother of the digital age. And yet, twenty-two years after CERN placed the World Wide Web software in the public domain, effectively creating the open internet, science itself has struggled not only to “go digital” but also to “go open”. This report, Making open science a reality reviews the progress in OECD countries in making the results of publicly funded research, namely scientific publications and research data openly accessible to researchers and innovators alike. The report i) reviews the policy rationale behind open science and open data; ii) discusses and presents evidence on the impacts of policies to promote open science and open data; iii) explores the legal barriers and solutions to greater access to research data; iv) provides a description of the key actors involved in open science and their roles; and finally v) assesses progress in OECD and selected non-member countries based a survey of recent policy trends. The project was carried out as a part of the activities of the OECD’s Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) of the Committee for Scientific and Technology Policy (CSTP). It has been prepared jointly by the OECD Secretariat (Giulia Ajmone Marsan and Mario Cervantes, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation) and members of the TIP steering group on Open Science: Alexandre Bourque-Viens (Canada), Päivi Rauste and Pirjo-Leena Forsström (Finland), Wojtek Sylwestrzak, Lukasz Bolikowski and Krzysztof Siewicz (Poland), Dirk Meissner (Russian Federation), Fernando Mérida Martín (Spain), Nick Seaford and Micheal Reda (United Kingdom), and Jerry Sheehan (United States). Lucie Guibault and Thomas Margoni (University of Amsterdam) have prepared a background paper to this report, containing detailed analysis of the legal aspects of open science and open data; this has been used in drafting the sections on the legal aspects of open science in this report. Barbara Ubaldi (OECD Secretariat, Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development), Fernando Galindo-Rueda, Brunella Boselli, Claire Jolly and Brigitte Van Beuzekom (OECD Secretariat, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation) provided additional input. Salvatore Mele, Vasco Vaz, Bo-Christer Björk and Mikael Laasko provided comments and data. Dominique Guellec, Head of the OECD Science and Technology Policy Division provided overall guidance and comments. Katjusha Boffa prepared this report for publication. In addition to the above-mentioned authors, who also provided the country notes relative to their countries, additional country notes were prepared by: Eric Laureys (Belgium) Patricia Muñoz and Paula González Frías (Chile) Viktor Muuli (Estonia) Mark Asch, Alain Colas, Marie-Pascale Lizée, Laure Menetrier, Justin Quemener, Romain Tales and Frédérique Sachwald (France) The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany) Evi Sachini (Greece) Usha Munshi and Devika Madalli (India) Claudio Artusio, Juan Carlos De Martin, Federico Cinquepalmi and Giulietta Iorio (Italy) 5 Kazuhiro Hayashi (Japan) Jeong Hyop Lee and Seokjong Lim (Korea) Margarita Ontiveros (Mexico) Rene Daane, Marjan van Meerloo and Dries van Loenen (the Netherlands) Rune Rambæk Schjølberg and Hanne Monclair (Norway) Luisa Henriques
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Search for Academic Journal Articles Online
    How to search for Academic Journal Articles Online While you CAN get to the online resources from the library page, I find that getting onto MyUT and clicking the LIBRARY TAB is much easier and much more familiar. I will start from there: Within the Library tab, there is a box called “Electronic Resources” and within that box is a hyperlink that will take you to “Research Databases by Name.” Click that link as shown below: The page it will take you looks like the picture below. Click “Listed by Name.” This will take you to a list starting with A, and the top selection is the one you want, it is called “Academic Search Complete.” Click it as pictured below: THIS SECTION IS ONLY IF YOU ARE ON AN OFF-CAMPUS COMPUTER: You will be required to log-in if you are off campus. The First page looks like this: Use the pull-down menu to find “University of Toledo” The Branch should default to “Main Campus,” which is what you want. Then click “Submit.” Next it will ask for you First and Last Name and your Rocket ID. If you want to use your social security number, that is also acceptable (but a little scary.). If you use your rocket ID, be sure to include the R at the beginning of the number. Then click Submit again and you are IN. The opening page has the searchbox right in the middle. When searching, start narrow and then get broader if you do not find enough results. For Example, when researching Ceremony by Leslie Silko, you may want your first search to be “Silko, Ceremony.” If you don’t find enough articles, you may then want to just search “Silko.” Finally, you may have to search for “Native American Literature.” And so on and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Value of Arts & Culture | the AHRC Cultural Value
    Understanding the value of arts & culture The AHRC Cultural Value Project Geoffrey Crossick & Patrycja Kaszynska 2 Understanding the value of arts & culture The AHRC Cultural Value Project Geoffrey Crossick & Patrycja Kaszynska THE AHRC CULTURAL VALUE PROJECT CONTENTS Foreword 3 4. The engaged citizen: civic agency 58 & civic engagement Executive summary 6 Preconditions for political engagement 59 Civic space and civic engagement: three case studies 61 Part 1 Introduction Creative challenge: cultural industries, digging 63 and climate change 1. Rethinking the terms of the cultural 12 Culture, conflict and post-conflict: 66 value debate a double-edged sword? The Cultural Value Project 12 Culture and art: a brief intellectual history 14 5. Communities, Regeneration and Space 71 Cultural policy and the many lives of cultural value 16 Place, identity and public art 71 Beyond dichotomies: the view from 19 Urban regeneration 74 Cultural Value Project awards Creative places, creative quarters 77 Prioritising experience and methodological diversity 21 Community arts 81 Coda: arts, culture and rural communities 83 2. Cross-cutting themes 25 Modes of cultural engagement 25 6. Economy: impact, innovation and ecology 86 Arts and culture in an unequal society 29 The economic benefits of what? 87 Digital transformations 34 Ways of counting 89 Wellbeing and capabilities 37 Agglomeration and attractiveness 91 The innovation economy 92 Part 2 Components of Cultural Value Ecologies of culture 95 3. The reflective individual 42 7. Health, ageing and wellbeing 100 Cultural engagement and the self 43 Therapeutic, clinical and environmental 101 Case study: arts, culture and the criminal 47 interventions justice system Community-based arts and health 104 Cultural engagement and the other 49 Longer-term health benefits and subjective 106 Case study: professional and informal carers 51 wellbeing Culture and international influence 54 Ageing and dementia 108 Two cultures? 110 8.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools
    applied sciences Article A Comprehensive Framework to Reinforce Evidence Synthesis Features in Cloud-Based Systematic Review Tools Tatiana Person 1,* , Iván Ruiz-Rube 1 , José Miguel Mota 1 , Manuel Jesús Cobo 1 , Alexey Tselykh 2 and Juan Manuel Dodero 1 1 Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain; [email protected] (I.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.M.M.); [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (J.M.D.) 2 Department of Information and Analytical Security Systems, Institute of Computer Technologies and Information Security, Southern Federal University, 347922 Taganrog, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews are powerful methods used to determine the state-of-the-art in a given field from existing studies and literature. They are critical but time-consuming in research and decision making for various disciplines. When conducting a review, a large volume of data is usually generated from relevant studies. Computer-based tools are often used to manage such data and to support the systematic review process. This paper describes a comprehensive analysis to gather the required features of a systematic review tool, in order to support the complete evidence synthesis process. We propose a framework, elaborated by consulting experts in different knowledge areas, to evaluate significant features and thus reinforce existing tool capabilities. The framework will be used to enhance the currently available functionality of CloudSERA, a cloud-based systematic review Citation: Person, T.; Ruiz-Rube, I.; Mota, J.M.; Cobo, M.J.; Tselykh, A.; tool focused on Computer Science, to implement evidence-based systematic review processes in Dodero, J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Availability of Scientific Publications
    Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications* Final Report January 2018 By: Science-Metrix Inc. 1335 Mont-Royal E. ▪ Montréal ▪ Québec ▪ Canada ▪ H2J 1Y6 1.514.495.6505 ▪ 1.800.994.4761 [email protected] ▪ www.science-metrix.com *This work was funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSES or the NSF. The analysis for this research was conducted by SRI International on behalf of NSF’s NCSES under contract number NSFDACS1063289. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Writing
    Technical Writing Engineers and scientists perform many complex and intricate tasks using the world's most sophisticated equipment. However, their performance as engineers and scientists is almost always related to their use of one of the oldest tools - the pen. In academia, the saying "publish or perish" often describes the process of acquiring tenure as well as credibility. In industry, both large and small organizations communicate everything through memos, reports, and short presentations. Product development decisions are often made by a committee of people far removed from the actual technology. The saying "he who has the most convincing viewgraphs and reports, wins..." can sometimes apply to industry. Therefore, it should be clear that an ability to concisely and efficiently prepare technical reports, research papers, and or viewgraph presentations can have a profound positive impact on an individual's career. Consider the following statement by anonymous Fortune 500 corporate vice president: "... in any large organization, the person who decides whether you get a promotion, or who determines the size of a pay raise, does not know you personally. The only thing they have to go on is what other people write about you and what you write about you ..." It can be seen that if one should write a lot of material to get ahead in one's career, it makes sense to write as objectively and concisely as possible. Objective writing is essential because good technical writing should not be seen as erroneous after new discoveries are made. A good technical report should present a clear milestone of what was done and understood at the time of the writing.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Peer Review?
    What is Peer Review? Scholarly peer review is the process of evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field. The process is designed to ensure that academic publications make substantial contributions to the state of knowledge about a subject and meet minimum standards of reliability. Fundamentals Is it worth it to do the extra work to find peer reviewed sources? When researching, it is important to look at articles recently published in top tier peer Keep in Mind reviewed or refereed journals to understand the current issues and developments of a Many scholarly journals only peer review original topic. research. The standards of peer review for editorials, literature review/survey articles, and How can I tell if an article is peer book reviews may be less stringent (or non- reviewed? existent) even if they are published in refereed Follow these steps: journals. • Check the UlrichsWeb database for the journal (is it refereed, is the content type listed as academic/scholarly). • If the journal is not in UlrichsWeb, try googling it. On the publisher’s website, look for the About page or submission guidelines. These pages will usually explicitly say whether a journal is peer reviewed or refereed and often will describe the process. The Process What is “blind” peer review? Usually the refereeing process involves what is called “blind” peer review. This is when the reviewers do not know who wrote the article they are reviewing. This encourages reviewers to evaluate the sources according to the norms of their community rather than the reputation of the author.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quick Guide to Scholarly Publishing
    A QUICK GUIDE TO SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING GRADUATE WRITING CENTER • GRADUATE DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • BERKELEY Belcher, Wendy Laura. Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009. Benson, Philippa J., and Susan C. Silver. What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Derricourt, Robin. An Author’s Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Germano, William. From Dissertation to Book. 2nd ed. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. ———. Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Goldbort, Robert. Writing for Science. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006. Harman, Eleanor, Ian Montagnes, Siobhan McMenemy, and Chris Bucci, eds. The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First- Time Academic Authors. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The Craft of Scientific Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Huff, Anne Sigismund. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1999. Luey, Beth. Handbook for Academic Authors. 5th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Luey, Beth, ed. Revising Your Dissertation: Advice from Leading Editors. Updated ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Matthews, Janice R., John M. Bowen, and Robert W. Matthews. Successful Scientific Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Moxley, Joseph M. PUBLISH, Don’t Perish: The Scholar’s Guide to Academic Writing and Publishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Journal Article: Writing Summaries and Critiques Definition of Genre Summaries and Critiques Are Two Ways to Write a Review of a Scientific Journal Article
    How to Read and Review a Scientific Journal Article: Writing Summaries and Critiques Definition of Genre Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has not read the original article. The critique begins by summarizing the article and then analyzes and evaluates the author’s research. Summaries and critiques help you learn to synthesize information from different sources and are usually limited to two pages maximum. Actions to Take 1. Skim the article without taking notes: cture.” 2. Re-read the article more carefully: is at the very end of the paper) and “Results” sections. Was the study repeated? What was the sample size? Is this representative of the larger population? What variables were held constant? Was there a control? What factors might affect the outcome? 3. Read the “Materials and Methods” and “Results” sections multiple times: raphs, tables, and diagrams. 4. Before you begin the first draft of your summary: Try to describe the article in your own words first. Try to distill the article down to its “scientific essence.” -written summary: The egg capsules of the marine snails Nucella lamellosa and N. lima protect developing embryos against low-salinity stress, even though the solute concentration within the capsules falls to near that of the surrounding water within about 1 h. 5. Write a draft of your summary: and avoid unintentional plagiarism.
    [Show full text]
  • How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited
    publications Article How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited Bo-Christer Björk 1,*, Sari Kanto-Karvonen 2 and J. Tuomas Harviainen 2 1 Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; Sari.Kanto@ilmarinen.fi (S.K.-K.); tuomas.harviainen@tuni.fi (J.T.H.) * Correspondence: bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi Received: 19 February 2020; Accepted: 24 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Badminton
    Facts and Records History of Badminton In 1873, the Duke of Beaufort held a lawn party at his country house in the village of Badminton, Gloucestershire. A game of Poona was played on that day and became popular among British society’s elite. The new party sport became known as “the Badminton game”. In 1877, the Bath Badminton Club was formed and developed the first official set of rules. The Badminton Association was formed at a meeting in Southsea on 13th September 1893. It was the first National Association in the world and framed the rules for the Association and for the game. The popularity of the sport increased rapidly with 300 clubs being introduced by the 1920’s. Rising to 9,000 shortly after World War Π. The International Badminton Federation (IBF) was formed in 1934 with nine founding members: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Denmark, Holland, Canada, New Zealand and France and as a consequence the Badminton Association became the Badminton Association of England. From nine founding members, the IBF, now called the Badminton World Federation (BWF), has over 160 member countries. The future of Badminton looks bright. Badminton was officially granted Olympic status in the 1992 Barcelona Games. Indonesia was the dominant force in that first Olympic tournament, winning two golds, a silver and a bronze; the country’s first Olympic medals in its history. More than 1.1 billion people watched the 1992 Olympic Badminton competition on television. Eight years later, and more than a century after introducing Badminton to the world, Britain claimed their first medal in the Olympics when Simon Archer and Jo Goode achieved Mixed Doubles Bronze in Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Review Papers 2 3 for Academic Meta-Jokes
    How to Review Papers 2 3 For academic meta-jokes: https://www.facebook.com/groups/reviewer2/ 4 “How not to be Reviewer #2 (https://amlbrown.com/2015/11/10/how-not-to-be-reviewer-2/)” - Ashley Brown, U. of Utaha Who is the Reviewer #2? ✘ “Literally, Reviewer 2 is the anonymised moniker given to the second peer to review a research paper. In common parlance, Reviewer 2 can be summarised as possessing the following qualities: ○ Grumpy, aggressive ○ Vague, unhelpful, inflexible ○ Overbearingly committed to a pet discipline ○ Overly focused on a particular methodology ○ Unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt ○ Unwilling to view the authors of a submitted paper as peers” 5 6 What is peer review? ✘ Evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (=peers) – Wikipedia ✘ Scholarly peer review helps editors and program chairs to decide whether to publish/accept specific work ✘ Reviewers work for free (also editors and chairs) – perhaps the weirdest part of any academic’s job to laymen’s eyes ✘ It has appeared 300 years ago (Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, editor Henry Oldenburg 1618-1677) 7 Why should we do peer review? ✘ Ensures and even improves the quality, value, and integrity of scientific communication ✘ Only the experts in the same domain can provide sufficiently detailed yet impartial opinions ✘ If you do not care about quality of other’s work, eventually everyone will stop caring about your work as well 8 Why should we do peer review? ✘ Scientific ideals aside, certain events just
    [Show full text]