So what should we make of Wikipedia? We all know that as a student you should be careful about using Wikipedia as a cited source. There is no guarantee that the information is correct. However, there is no denying that most of us use Wikipedia on a regular basis: When looking up stats on your favorite football player, reading up on your next vacation spot, yes even learning the basics of a field you didn’t study.
In many ways it’s brilliant, and there are good reasons why it’s one of the most used webpages on the internet.
But the question is: Should academics spend their time contributing to Wikipedia? In 2011 the Guardian wrote an article on this: Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics. Clearly, one can see the positive arguments for doing so. The public would have access to information from people who have spent their life studying a specific field, and there are some great communicators and good writers at universities who could explain difficult topics to readers.
Continue reading “Should you write on Wikipedia?”
How can you inform Ph.D. Candidates and early career researchers about Open Science without becoming too political? Is information given about open science in conflict with the expectations for publishing from our universities?
Torstein Låg, psychologist and senior academic librarian at the University Library at UiT The Arctic University of Norway, weighs in on this topic.
Låg is also one of the editors of the web resource PhDonTrack.net.
Continue reading “Open Science & Ph.D-candidates”
Making Science great again
Why is it important to preregister research studies? According to associate professor Matthias Mittner, at the research group for cognitive neurosciences at UiT the Arctic University of Norway, there are good reasons for doing this:
- You can get good feedback from reviewers on an early stage.
- You get a time stamp on your idea.
- The result is more trustworthy, and you avoid data drudging, like p-fishing, or post hoc storytelling/HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known).
- You also increase the credibility of the reports you produce.
Continue reading “Preregistration In Science”
In 2019 Norway decided not to renew their deal with the Dutch publisher Elsevier. The reasons were clear: there was no real transition towards Open Access.
Now, a new deal has been signed with the same publisher, and the deal is worth around 9-10 million euros. But the question is: What kind of a deal has been made this time around?
Continue reading “Norway made a new deal with Elsevier”
Deal or No Deal?
Norwegian research institutions have decided not to renew their agreement with Elsevier.
The agreement with the publisher Elsevier expired at the end of 2018. Negotiations have been underway for more than six months between Unit (department for IT and collective services for higher education and research) and the Dutch publisher, without reaching a new agreement.
Continue reading “No Deal with Norway”