Open Access in Latin America

Are there other ways of making Open Access work other than the APC-based model we are used to in Europe and North America?  Sure there are. In this episode, Dr. Arianna Becerril-García talks about the state of Open Access in Latin America.

Becerril-Garica is the chair of AmeliCA and Executive Director of Redalyc.org. She is also a professor at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico.

She talks to us about the value of the scholarly-led, non-profit business model to achieve Open Access. She also addresses their concerns with Plan S.

Continue reading “Open Access in Latin America”

Should you write on Wikipedia?

Picture of Trond Trosterud, our guest at Open Science Talk. Trosterud talks about Wikipedia.

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?”

Preregistration In Science

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:

  1. You can get good feedback from reviewers on an early stage.
  2. You get a time stamp on your idea.
  3. The result is more trustworthy, and you avoid data drudging,  like p-fishing, or post hoc storytelling/HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known).
  4. You also increase the credibility of the reports you produce.

Continue reading “Preregistration In Science”