scholarly journals Making Science Transparent By Default; Introducing the TOP Statement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg ◽  
Tom Appleyard ◽  
Sarah Brookhart ◽  
Todd Carpenter ◽  
Michael Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Scientific Claim

In order to increase the replicability of scientific work, the scientific community has called for practices designed to increase the transparency of research (McNutt, 2014; Nosek et al., 2015). The validity of a scientific claim depends not on the reputation of those making the claim, the venue in which the claim is made, or the novelty of the result, but rather on the empirical evidence provided by the underlying data and methods. Proper evaluation of the merits of scientific findings requires availability of the methods, materials, and data and the reasoned argument that serve as the basis for the published conclusions (Claerbout and Karrenbach 1992; Donoho et al 2009; Stodden et al 2013; Borwein et al 2013; Munafò et al, 2017). Wide and growing support for these principles (see, for example, signatories to Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA, https://sfdora.org/, and the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines https://cos.io/our-services/top-guidelines/) must be coupled with guidelines to increase open sharing of data and research materials, use of reporting guidelines, preregistration, and replication. We propose that, going forward, authors of all scientific articles disclose the availability and location of all research items, including data, materials, and code, related to their published articles in what we will refer to as a TOP Statement.

scholarly journals Uncertainty about the risks associated with microplastics among lay and topic-experienced respondents

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina J. Thiele ◽  
Malcolm D. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Perception ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Environmental Issue ◽  
Contaminants Of Emerging Concern ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Present Part ◽  
Fact Checking ◽  
Level Of Concern ◽  
People’S Perceptions

AbstractMicroplastics are contaminants of emerging concern but there is currently a lack of evidence on actual risks relating to them, despite claims in media and scientific articles. Research on people’s perceptions on microplastics is in its infancy. Here we present part of a larger survey about people’s perceptions of issues with microplastics. Our analysis of 1681 responses across the globe to an online questionnaire demonstrates a certain level of uncertainty, not only in lay people but also respondents who study/work on the topic of plastics and microplastics as a pollutant. This uncertainty ranges from level of concern about microplastics as an environmental issue to existing evidence for effects. Further, there is some discrepancy between risk perception and state of the research. Some of this may be driven by scientific work with some serious limitations in reporting and methods. This highlights the need for fact-checking of circulating information about microplastics, but also for addressing the discordance between ecotoxicological risk and how risk is framed within the scientific community.

scholarly journals CONVENTIONAL AND CONSENSUAL CONCEPTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE NATURE

2020 ◽  
pp. 7-26
Author(s):  
Сергей Александрович Лебедев ◽  
Сергей Николаевич Коськов
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Pure Experience ◽  
Classical Philosophy ◽  
The One ◽  
Methodology Of Science

В статье излагается содержание двух базовых концепций неклассической философии и методологии науки: конвенционалистской и консенсуалистской теории природы научного знания и научной истины. Каждая из них является альтернативой двум основным парадигмам классической философии и методологии науки: эмпиризму (позитивизму) и рационализму. С точки зрения конвенционализма научное знание не есть ни описание чистого опыта, ни его обобщение. Но оно не является также и результатом некой априорной интуиции и чистого разума. Согласно конвенционализму научное знание - это система доказательной информации, исходные принципы которой имеют характер условных, конвенциональных истин. Отсюда следует, что любая истина в науке не категорична, а условна и имеет форму «если, то». Консенсуалистская концепция природы научного знания возникла в философии науки второй половины XX в. Она была, с одной стороны, обобщением конвенционализма, а с другой - его отрицанием. Если в конвенционализме основным субъектом научного познания является отдельный ученый, то в консенсуалистской эпистемологии таким субъектом является социальный субъект - научное сообщество. Научное познание имеет принципиально коллективный характер как в плане его получения в силу разделения научного труда, так и в плане его легитимации и оценки. Последние операции всегда являются результатом консенсуса научного сообщества. The article examines the content of two basic conceptions of non-classical philosophy and methodology of science: the conventionalist and consensual theory of the nature of scientific knowledge. Each of them is an alternative to the two main paradigms of classical philosophy and the methodology of science: empiricism (positivism) and rationalism. From the point of view of conventionalism, scientific knowledge is neither a description of pure experience nor a generalization of it. But it is also not the result of some a priori intuition and pure reason. According to conventionalism, scientific knowledge is a system of evidence-based information, the initial principles of which have the character of conditional, conventional truths. It follows that any truth in science is not categorical, but conditional and has the form «if, then». The consensual concept of the nature of scientific knowledge emerged in the philosophy of science of the second half of the twentieth century. It was, on the one hand, a generalization of conventionalism; on the other, a negation of it. If in conventionalism the main subject of scientific knowledge is an individual scientist, then in consensual epistemology such a subject is a social subject - the scientific community. Scientific knowledge has a fundamentally collective character, both in terms of its acquisition by virtue of the division of scientific work, and in terms of its legitimization and evaluation. The latest operations are always the result of a consensus of the scientific community.

Professional Society Codes of Conduct: Their Use & Misuse – An Ethical Problem Upon Which the Integrity of Science Rests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadredin Moosavi
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Professional Society ◽  
Professional Societies

<p>The scientific community has a long history of self-regulation, with accepted public standards regarding the ethical conduct of research, treatment of human subjects and plagiarism. Violations of these widely accepted standards have been investigated and enforced via universities, funding agencies and publishers using their employment, financial and copyright relationships with members of the scientific community. Some modicum of fairness protecting both sides of the relationship arises from an open process, the ability of either party to seek other partners for their work and public shaming of miscarriages of justice committed by either side. By focusing directly on scientific work and the evidence used to support it where scientific expertise is relevant; these standards have worked reasonably well in keeping science honest without silencing scholars whose work is not currently accepted by the mainstream. Such science is by definition self-correcting and warrants public faith in the integrity of its findings.</p><p>Recently, these standards have been expanded into broad Codes of Conduct including regulation of behavior normally reserved for national legal systems built on clearly defined constitutional due process rights, which professional societies lack the jurisdiction, expertise, resources and will to protect. While lacking legal authority, the shadow tribunals these codes create have significant ability to impact the careers of those accused of transgressing their dictates. Such extra-legal bodies, often staffed by non-scientists serving as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury, undermine academic freedom and the expression of diverse ideas required for a healthy, inclusive scientific community. Instead of being judged on their research, scientists now risk being bullied out of the field on the basis of social considerations reflecting the opinion of unelected code compliance officers acting to fulfill the agenda of professional society leaders rather than those officials elected to enforce national laws. These behavioral tribunals are the anti-thesis of scientific practice and threaten to undermine public faith in the integrity of science.</p><p>This presentation examines several cases from the recent scientific literature. The merits of each case are evaluated using the professional society code of conduct applied to the scientists in question, with outcomes for the parties involved and wider implications of the case discussed. The results suggest that professional society codes of conduct remain capable of assessing the merits of scientific research though social pressure to favor particular demographic groups is undermining the process. The same analysis indicates that professional societies are not competent in assessing behavior via their codes of conduct due to fundamentally flawed investigatory mechanisms and lack of due process protections. Strong biases in society leadership allows misuse of codes of conduct to unlawfully impose a policy agenda on the community, despite evidence that such policy is at odds with, and harmful to, scientific practice. Public belief in the integrity of science will erode if the scientific community fails to disavow and halt the misuse of professional society codes of conduct to regulate behavior in a fashion that no national legal system would condone.</p>

scholarly journals Distinctive Features of the African-American Family: Debunking the Myth of the Deficit Model

2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Briscoe
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Social System ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Comprehensive Approach ◽  
African American Family ◽  
American Family ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Deficit Model ◽  
Distinctive Features

Throughout the 1900's, social scientists have debated the question of whether the African American family is an adaptative social system or whether it is pathological, perpetuating its poverty over the generations. This article examines the holistic perspective as the preeminent comprehensive approach in studying the African American family and provides empirical evidence of distinctive features of the African American family in support of the adaptation argument. The adaptation/deficit debate will probably continue as long as the scientific community fails to fully acknowledge and make the most of theoretical constructs that are holistic in principle and design.

scholarly journals Exploring machine learning: A bibliometric general approach using SciMAT

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1210
Author(s):  
Juan Rincon-Patino ◽  
Gustavo Ramirez-Gonzalez ◽  
Juan Carlos Corrales
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Classification Algorithms ◽  
Science Mapping ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Regression Algorithms ◽  
Mapping Analysis ◽  
Machine Learning Applications

Background: Machine learning is becoming increasingly important for companies and the scientific community. In this study, we perform a bibliometric analysis on machine learning research, in order to provide an overview of the scientific work during the period 2007-2017 in this area and to show trends that could be the basis for future developments in the field. Methods: This study is carried out using the SciMAT tool based on results extracted from Scopus. This analysis shows the strategic diagrams of evolution and a set of thematic networks. The results provide information on broad tendencies of machine learning. Results: The results show that SciMAT is a useful tool to carry out a science mapping analysis, and emphasizes the premise that machine learning has boundless applications and will continue to be an interesting research field in the future. Conclusions: Some of the conclusions exposed in this study show that classification algorithms have been widely studied and represent a relevant tool for generating different machine learning applications. Nonetheless, regression algorithms are becoming increasingly important in the scientific community, allowing the generation of solutions to predict diseases, sales, and yields, for example.

Does the Universe Suggest Design, Purpose, Goodness, or Concern?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Steane
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Creative Process ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Random Fluctuation ◽  
Design Purpose ◽  
The World ◽  
Scientific Claim ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Universe

This chapter tackles the question of whether or not the natural world presents us with a picture empty of purpose or good or evil or concern. No empirical evidence can entirely refute the claim that random fluctuation is the complete truth about the origin of all things, but it follows that this is not a scientific claim. Therefore it is a question of forming a reasonable judgement. It appears that the natural world has a depth and richness that exceeds what would be necessary for thinking brains to come to be realized in it. Also, notwithstanding the pain of the world, it is a project that merits our engagement and commitment, and occasionally the transcendent breaks in. We are not competent to make an overall judgement, but we can join in with the creative process of the world and find our role.

United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 25-53
Author(s):  
Elaine Howard Ecklund ◽  
David R. Johnson ◽  
Brandon Vaidyanathan ◽  
Kirstin R. W. Matthews ◽  
Steven W. Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religion And Science ◽  
Religious People ◽  
The Us ◽  
Beneficial Impact

US scientists believe that the US religious public is generally antiscience. However the views of religious Americans are much more nuanced and religious Americans are often more open to science and scientific issues than scientists would believe. Nevertheless, scientists’ perceptions of the religious public in the United States shape their views of religion and science. Scientists who are religious generally keep their science and their faith separate. Religious scientists feel they are at risk of discrimination within the scientific community, because of existing stereotypes about religious people. Religious scientists are often influenced by their faith when choosing scientific work that they think will have a beneficial impact on society.

scholarly journals CONCEPTION OF CREATING THE NATIONAL ANTI-PLAGIARISM SERVICE IN AZERBAIJAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Rahila Hasanova ◽  
◽  
Firudin Asgarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Favorable Environment ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Fast Development ◽  
Information And Communication

Currently, fighting against plagiarism is one of the most actual problems in the scientific community and society. The fast development of information and communication technologies, the openness and accessibility of scientific information in the Internet, create a favorable environment for plagiarism. Every author may encounter such situations unintentionally or for some other reason. The article highlightes conception of creating the national anti-plagiarism service in Azerbaijan. It provides brief information about plagiarism and its types. Information about characteristics of anti-antiplagiarism systems is also provided. In the example of Azerbaijan, the stages of rendering national anti-plagiarism service are listed. The proposed national anti-plagiarism service can be used by teachers, students and researchers of all universities and research organizations. Thus, with the submitted reference for each scientific work, it is possible to decide whether it is original or not.

scholarly journals SCIENCE EVALUATION: SOME FEATURES

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
Vincentas Lamanauskas
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Other Hand

Scientific work evaluation is becoming an urgent and even a sharp question, raising various discussions as never before. Science, in some sense, has strong immunity, but in recent years, it has been rapidly weakened both internally and externally. Of course, we have to believe, that universities will understand that it is firstly on them to save and strengthen both quality of activities and prestige and develop real but not demonstrated science. Europe “has been having a headache” for a long time thinking how to withstand ever - strengthening competition with such regions as North America (especially USA), South-east Asia and so on. It is obvious, that plenty of science work ranking and evaluation systems exist. On the other hand, it is doubtful if any of them is suitable for the whole science direction, science work and university type variety or for other evaluation purposes. In spite of various contradictions, evaluation systems have to be improved, elements, having negative influence have to be sought to eliminate. The Conference ‘Technologies Transforming Research Assessment’ took place in Vilnius on March 19, 2014. The attention of the conference was paid to the new and effective technologies of an assessment of scientific publications. One of such technologies ‘Epistemio’. It was stated that it is an effective instrument to manage institutional lists of publications (http://www.epistemio.com). The Snowball Metrics initiative was also introduced. Elsevier`s new generation of SciVal was presented. The evaluation of scientific publications requires to keep transparency and reliability of the process. On the other hand, universities have to create optimal conditions to all the scientist for scientific activity, to develop encouragement mechanisms. Thus, science quality, science policy formation and other related questions are very urgent in Lithuania. There is no clear and distinct science policy formation mechanism. The expansion of science seeking only pragmatic aims leads only to a deadlock. Science, first of all, is cognition, creation of knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to keep and develop science for the sake of cognition but not just for money.

Rethinking Science as a Vocation: One Hundred Years of Bureaucratization of Academic Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392110260
Author(s):  
You-Na Lee ◽  
John P. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Max Weber ◽  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Science Policies

One hundred years ago, in his lecture Science as a Vocation, Max Weber prefigured a transition from science as a calling to science as bureaucratically organized work. He argued that a calling for science is critical for sustaining scientific work. Using Weber’s arguments for science as a vocation as a lens, in this paper, we discuss whether a calling for science may become difficult to maintain in increasingly bureaucratized scientific work and also whether such a calling is necessary for the advance of science. We present empirical evidence for this bureaucratization of scientific work and further develop Weber’s discussion of science by contrasting it with the views of other theorists of science and innovation. Finally, we discuss the implications of these theories, develop a set of policy recommendations, and outline a research agenda designed to develop science policies and a sociology of science that match this shift from vocation to bureaucracy in scientific work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document