What is it like to work at a library where the largest journal subscription deal was terminated? How do the researchers really feel about it? And what solutions are recommended?
In this episode, we explore what Swedish librarians and researchers experienced during the time period when they didn’t have a journal deal with Elsevier (from 2018-2020). Did they manage? Did they save money? And did the researchers from the institution really voice their concerns?
Our guest is Cecilie Heyman Widmark, she is a librarian working with Open Access, Media and Publishing at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.
Continue reading “Life without a Journal Deal”
Is it fair that researchers and policymakers in low-income countries have to pay to read new research on diseases they treat?
In this episode, our guest is Robert Terry from the World Health Organization’s Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), where he works as a manager of research policy.
His background is from both the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust. Continue reading “Democratizing Health Research”
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”
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?”
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”