scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

scholarly journals Bye Bye Peer-Reviewed Publishing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Abambres ◽  
Tony Salloom ◽  
Nejra Beganovic ◽  
Rafał Dojka ◽  
Sergio Roncallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Scientific Performance ◽  
Science Funding ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This work is the continuation of a ‘revolution’ started with "Research Counts, Not the Journal". Own and published opinions from worldwide scientists on critical issues of peer-reviewed publishing are presented. In my opinion, peer-reviewed publishing is a quite flawed process (in many ways) that has greatly harmed Science for a long time – it has been imposed by most academic and science funding institutions as the only way to assess scientific performance. Unfortunately, most academics still follow that path, even though I believe most do it for the fear of losing their job or not being promoted. This paper aims to encourage (i) a full disruption of peer-reviewed publishing and (ii) the use of free eprint repositories for a sustainable academic/scientific publishing, i.e. healthier (no stress/distress associated to the peer review stage and the long waiting for publication) and more economic, effective and efficient (research is made immediately available and trackable/citable to anyone). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that nothing exists against scientific publishers/journals – actually it´s perfectly normal that any company wants to implement its own quality criteria. This paper is just the way chosen to promote the quick implementation of suitable policies for research evaluation.

The Evolutionary Psychology of Scientific Publishing: Cost-Benefit Optimization of Players in the Game

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milind Watve
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Collective Goal ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Collective Goals ◽  
Innate Tendency

Peer reviewed scientific publishing is critical for communicating important findings, interpretations and theories in any branch of science. While the value of peer review is rarely doubted, much concern is being raised about the possible biases in the process. I argue here that most of the biases originate in the evolved innate tendency of every player to optimize one’s own cost benefits. Different players in the scientific publishing game have different cost-benefit optima. There are multiple conflicts between individual optima and collective goals. An analysis of the cost-benefit optima of every player in the scientific publishing game shows how and why biases originate. In the current system of publishing, by optimization considerations, the probability of publishing a ‘bad’ manuscript is relatively small but the probability of rejecting a ‘good’ manuscript is very high. By continuing with the current publishing structure, the global distribution of the scientific community would be increasingly clustered. Publication biases by gender, ethnicity, reputation, conformation and conformity will be increasingly common and revolutionary concepts increasingly difficult to publish. Ultimately, I explore the possibility of designing a peer review publishing system in which the conflicts between individual optimization and collective goal can be minimized. In such a system, if everyone behaves with maximum selfishness, biases would be minimized and the progress towards the collective goal would be faster and smoother. Changing towards such a system might prove difficult unless a critical mass of authors take an active role to revolutionize scientific publishing.

Leading with Pedagogical Tact- a Challenge in Children's Sports in Sweden

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 127-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krister Hertting
Keyword(s):  
Daily Activity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Competitive Sport ◽  
Sports Clubs ◽  
Youth Politics ◽  
Pedagogical Tact ◽  
Children And Parents ◽  
Swedish Society ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Voluntary Commitment

Leading with Pedagogical Tact- a Challenge in Children's Sports in Sweden The purpose of this article is to elucidate and problemize meetings between children and leaders in children's sport. The competitive sport is high valuated in the Swedish society and sport for children is central in the Swedish youth politics. The foundation in Swedish sport, as well as in the other Nordic countries, has for a long time relied on voluntary commitment. Approximately 650 000 people are voluntary engaged as leaders in sport in Sweden and 70% of children between 7 and 14 years compete in sports clubs. There is, however, a tension in the Swedish sport system. The sports for children has double missions - ‘association nurturing’ and ‘competition nurturing’, missions which are not always in harmony. In the daily activity it is the voluntary leaders who have to deal with these missions, which creates a field of tension. In this article I argue for a bridge between these missions by a leadership based on pedagogical tact. The empirical outlook is a narrative based on statements from leaders, children and parents in a study dealing with voluntary leadership within children's football. In the end I argue that focusing on this bridge is a win-win situation, both for children and sports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document