Scientists are rewarded with funding and publications when they come up with innovative findings. But in the midst of a ‘reproducibility crisis,’ being new isn’t the only thing to value about research.
Predatory publishers are vultures feeding on academics’ worries about output and incentives.
Ondacaracola/Shutterstock
If there’s a general sense that academic publication is about knowledge dissemination rather than meeting performance targets, academics and universities become less vulnerable to predatory journals.
Locking articles away behind a paywall stifles access.
Elizabeth
In our institutions of higher education and our research labs, scholars first produce, then buy back, their own content. With the costs rising and access restricted, something’s got to give.
Data shows gender disparities in networking.
Shutterstock
The low share of women revealed in this data is problematic for two reasons: a lack of diversity, and what it shows about women’s participation in the social network of informal collaboration.
Research must be carefully scrutinised by peer reviewers to ensure its veracity.
Nattapat Jitrungruengnij/Shutterstock
Scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. Peer review filters the good science from the bad.
Women are less likely to be published in scientific journals.
Shutterstock
Women can often draw attention to dimensions of thinking that their male perspective may miss. But this will only work if they are in positions that allow them to lead and drive the research agenda.
When academics are pushed to publish and to compete, teaching and research can take a back seat.
Shutterstock
More must be done to develop mechanisms based on intrinsic motivations of committed, quality academics. It’s important to limit the harms currently being caused by rent seeking.
The scientific refereeing process can be tedious, time-consuming and isn’t very rewarding.
Shutterstock
The scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback – particularly if the comment came from a well-connected academic.
Research shows that Wikipedia is one of the most read sources of medical information by the general public across the world.
jfcherry/Flickr
Medical entries on Wikipedia are widely consulted across the world. Doctors and medical researchers need to make efforts to ensure the content on the online collaborative encyclopedia is accurate.
Knowledge is power. If you own it, you can control those without it. Since so much knowledge about Africa doesn’t sit on the continent, it’s apparent that Africa lacks power in this regard.
Sampling is a powerful scientific tool - when it’s used honestly.
Shutterstock
Some water researchers are ignoring the evidence offered by sampling if it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. But science should always be honest and open.
Professor Peter Higgs, joint winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Russell Cheyne/Reuters
The unavoidable regime of publication pervades contemporary academic life across the world. While presented as a virtuous thing, it can actually suffocate the academic profession.
What is the best way to return ‘Africa’ to African Studies?
Shutterstock
The academic medical community largely views Wikipedia with suspicion. But some traditional journals are starting to take the site more seriously – and some journals work very closely with it.
Previous Vice President of the Academy of Science of South Africa and DSI-NRF SARChI chair in Fungal Genomics, Professor in Genetics, University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria
Director of Centre for Postgraduate Studies, Rhodes University & Visiting Research Professor in Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Rhodes University
Matthew Flinders Professor of Global Ecology and Models Theme Leader for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Flinders University