THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE:

2018 ◽  
pp. 3-23
2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (22) ◽  
pp. 876-879
Author(s):  
András Schubert

The role of networks is swiftly increasing in the production and communication of scientific knowledge. Network aspects have, therefore, an ever growing importance in the analysis of the scientific enterprise, as well. The present paper demonstrates some techniques of studying the network of scientific journals on the subject of seeking the position of Orvosi Hetilap (Hungarian Medical Journal) in the international journal network. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(22), 876–879.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barner ◽  
Alan Bale

We review advances in the experimental study of the mass-count distinction and highlight problems that have emerged. First, we lay out what we see to be the scientific enterprise of studying the syntax and semantics of mass-count distinction, and the assumptions we believe must be made if additional progress is to occur, especially as the empirical facts continue to grow in number and complexity. Second, we discuss the new landscape of cross-linguistic results that has been created by widespread use of the quantity judgment task, and what these results tell us about the nature of the mass-count distinction. Finally, we discuss the relationship between the mass-count distinction and non-linguistic cognition, and in particular the object-substance distinction.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nusbaum ◽  
Toby SantaMaria

The scientific enterprise reflects society at large, and as such it actively disadvantages minority groups. From an ethical perspective, this system is unacceptable as it actively undermines principles of justice and social good, as well as the research principles of openness and public responsibility. Further, minority social scientists lead to better overall scientific products, meaning a diverse scientific body can also be considered an instrumental good. Thus, centering minority voices in science is an ethical imperative. This paper outlines what can be done to actively center these scientists, including changing the way metrics are used to assess the performance of individual scientists and altering the reward structure within academic science to promote heterogenous research groups.


SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402110164
Author(s):  
Joanna K. Huxster ◽  
Matthew H. Slater ◽  
Asheley R. Landrum

Significant gaps remain between public opinion and the scientific consensus on many issues. We present the results of three studies ( N = 722 in total) for the development and testing of a novel instrument to measure a largely unmeasured aspect of scientific literacy: the enterprise of science, particularly in the context of its social structures. We posit that this understanding of the scientific enterprise is an important source for the public’s trust in science. Our results indicate that the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI) is a reliable and valid instrument that correlates positively with trust in science ( r = .256, p < .001), and level of education ( r = .245, p < .001). We also develop and validate a six question short version of the SESI for ease of use in longer surveys.


2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn A.L. Bayne

The increasing emphasis on the provision of environmental enrichment to laboratory animals, vis-à-vis the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC 1996), and a potential forthcoming policy from the USDA on the subject, can be difficult to accommodate in a toxicology research environment. A summary will be provided of current requirements and recommendations. Then, strategies for meeting regulatory requirements will be described for non-rodent animals used in toxicology research. These strategies will address methods of both social enrichment, such as pair or group housing, as well as non-social enrichment, such as cage furniture, food enrichments, and toys. In addition, the value of positive interactions with staff (e.g., through training paradigms or socialization programs) will also be discussed. Apparent in the discussion of these strategies will be an overarching recognition of the necessity to avoid introducing confounding variables into the research project and to avoid compromising animal health. The roles of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and the attending veterinarian in helping scientists balance animal well-being, the scientific enterprise and the regulatory environment will be described.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quan-Hoang Vuong ◽  
Viet-Phuong La ◽  
Tung Manh Ho ◽  
Thu-Trang Vuong ◽  
Toan Manh Ho

Purpose:Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.Method:We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.Results:Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.Conclusion:This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
Larisa Shirshova ◽  
Mikhail Glukhov

The article presents a model of a strategy for the development of human resources in a knowledge-intensive enterprise, based on the use of qualitative and quantitative parameters, taking into account individual and collective characteristics. For a quantitative assessment of the organizational level of labor, the authors propose the use of a coefficient, with the help of which, within the framework of the strategy model, the criteria for the development of personality in labor activity are determined. To implement the proposed development strategy, a model for developing the skills of employees and managers of a high-tech enterprise and a model for developing professional competencies of personnel are presented.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge P J M Horbach

Abstract The global Covid-19 pandemic has had considerable impact on the scientific enterprise, including scholarly publication and peer review practices. Several studies have assessed these impacts, showing among others that medical journals have strongly accelerated their review processes for Covid-19 related content. This has raised questions and concerns regarding the quality of the review process and the standards to which manuscripts are held for publication. To address these questions, this study sets out to assess qualitative differences in review reports and editorial decision letters for Covid-19 related, articles not related to Covid-19 published during the 2020 pandemic, and articles published before the pandemic. It employs the open peer review model at the British Medical Journal and eLife to study the content of review reports, editorial decisions, author responses, and open reader comments. It finds no clear differences between review processes of articles not related to Covid-19 published during or before the pandemic. However, it does find notable diversity between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 related articles, including fewer requests for additional experiments, more cooperative comments, and different suggestions to address too strong claims. In general, the findings suggest that both reviewers and journal editors implicitly and explicitly use different quality criteria to assess Covid-19 related manuscripts, hence transforming science’s main evaluation mechanism for their underlying studies and potentially affecting their public dissemination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document