scholarly journals Carta. Por un cambio en la evaluación de la investigación científica: “no tirar al niño junto con el agua sucia”

Author(s):  
Lluís Codina

This is a response to two letters published recently in the Profesional de la información journal on the need for changes in the evaluation of science. Two elements are proposed that should be part of any future evaluation model, namely the obligation for accountability through external evaluations, and the central role of science communication. Likewise, examples of in-depth changes that can be undertaken and that respect these two essential principles are presented. Additionally, a review of sometimes misinterpreted concepts is proposed, such as the expression “publish or perish,” because it masks the real problem instead of denouncing it, or that of self-plagiarism because not only is it an oxymoron but it also places plagiarism in a field of acceptable practices, which is meaningless. Resumen Respuesta a dos cartas recientes publicadas en la revista Profesional de la información sobre la necesidad de cambios en la evaluación de la ciencia. Se proponen dos elementos que deberían formar parte de cualquier futuro modelo de evaluación, a saber: la obligación del rendimiento de cuentas mediante evaluaciones externas, y el papel central de la comunicación de la ciencia. Así mismo, se presentan ejemplos de cambios en profundidad que pueden acometerse y que respetan estos dos principios esenciales. Adicionalmente se propone una revisión de conceptos a veces mal interpretados, como la expresión publish or perish, porque enmascara el auténtico problema en lugar de denunciarlo, o el de autoplagio porque no solamente es un oxímoron sino que sitúa el plagio en un terreno de prácticas aceptables, lo que carece de sentido.

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talbot Brewer

Over the past two decades, moral philosophers have been engaged in a seemingly interminable debate about the role of internal and external reasons in practical reasoning. The rough distinction between these two sorts of reasons is this: internal reasons apply to particular agents in virtue of their relation to that agent's desires, preferences, or other motivational states, while external reasons are normative for particular agents quite independently of their relation to the subjective motivational states of these agents.


Author(s):  
Irina V. Bogdashina

The article reveals the measures undertaken by the Soviet state during the “thaw” in the fi eld of reproductive behaviour, the protection of motherhood and childhood. Compilations, manuals and magazines intended for women were the most important regulators of behaviour, determining acceptable norms and rules. Materials from sources of personal origin and oral history make it possible to clearly demonstrate the real feelings of women. The study of women’s everyday and daily life in the aspect related to pregnancy planning, bearing and raising children will allow us to compare the real situation and the course of implementation of tasks in the fi eld of maternal and child health. The demographic surge in the conditions of the economy reviving after the war, the lack of preschool institutions, as well as the low material wealth of most families, forced women to adapt to the situation. In the conditions of combining the roles of mother, wife and female worker, women entrusted themselves with almost overwork, which affected the health and well-being of the family. The procedure for legalising abortion gave women not only the right to decide the issue of motherhood themselves, but also made open the already necessary, but harmful to health, habitual way of birth control. Maternal care in diffi cult material and housing conditions became the concern of women and the older generation, who helped young women to combine the role of a working mother, which the country’s leadership confi dently assigned to women.


Author(s):  
Matthew Rendall

It is sometimes argued in support of discounting future costs and benefits that if we gave the same weight to the future as to the present, we would invest nearly all our income, but never spend it. Rather than enjoying the fruits of our investments, we would always do better to reinvest them. Undiscounted utilitarianism (UU), so the argument goes, is collectively self-defeating. This attempted reductio ad absurdum fails. Regardless of whether each generation successfully followed UU, or merely attempted to follow it, we could never get trapped in endless saving. The real problem is different: without the ability to foresee the end of the world, UU cannot tell us how much to save. Discounting is a defensible response, but only when coupled with a rule against risking catastrophe.


2016 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 34-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuang-Chang Chang ◽  
Ching-Hsiang Chao ◽  
Jin-Huei Yeh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document