Assessing Scientists By Publications And Impact Factor Is One Of The Most Harmful Scientific Practices

I have a blog post titled Assessing Scientists By Publications And Impact Factor Is One Of The Most Harmful Scientific Practices on the OpenUP Hub blog.

OpenUP is a European Commission project for explaining, discussing and sharing information about open access. The website is not very well set out and difficult to navigate, with some information seeming to be missing completely, but it has good intentions. In any case, I decided to enter their blog competition since there’s an opportunity to win a trip to an open science conference in Brussels which could be nice.

My entry relates to just some of the problems in scientific publishing that are due to the practice of evaluating scientists according to publications and the impact factor. But I will direct your attention there to read more.


Sci-Hub is necessary but it is not a solution

There is a large and important debate in the scientific community at the moment which concerns access to research publications. Currently, a large amount of research is only available if a researcher or institution is willing to pay, often exorbitant fees, to access it. The debate has focussed on many issues, such as whether it is right for publishers to profit off research that is funded by the public when the researchers receive nothing or how a combination of high costs and funding limitations further the research gap between developed and developing countries.

There is increasing pressure, for example by the European Union and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to move to something known as open access, where authors pay a publication fees but where the research is then freely available to everyone. One player that often comes up in these discussions is Sci-Hub. Continue reading