Scientific Articles: Science is moldy | Sciences

How can a researcher publish a scientific study every 37 hours? What is that “most stated in classification from ShanghaiHow can Arab universities pay this much money just to change the affiliation of the institution? Who does the scientific publications? How are the studies funded? These are some of the many questions I have been receiving lately on my phone. What we might call a “lack of scientific integrity,” or what I like to describe as the influence of investigative stimuli.

Some of the unequivocal answers I gave to these questions were: Publishing a study in 37 hours is impossible. Arab universities pay the price because they fall prey, like the rest of the world’s universities, to university rankings. Scientific publications are (presumably) made by researchers. We all pay them. And the most quoted is something like this 40 major from science. However, these reflections do not respond to the drama of an outdated, ineffective and battered scientific system.

Science, in addition to being the key to making a better world, to confronting climate change or a global pandemic, is also a human enterprise, and the scientific profession is a profession. To enter (and stay) in this race, researchers have to publish and publish scientific articles (Leaves) and, of course, obtain public funding to conduct that research which, in the best-case scenario for your career, culminates in a publication in a journal with a high “impact factor” (jif). And start over. principlepublish or destroy“It has led to a lot of bad practices and unethical behavior and wasted a lot of research (Search waste) without having any impact on society, and even the science reproduction crisis.

Science is the key to making a better world, facing climate change or a global pandemic, but it is also a human enterprise, and a science job is a profession.

Scholars possess, in addition to curiosity, interest, and other commendable principles that direct us to a scientific career, a “will-inducer” to publish, as an end in itself. Because it is what will allow us to get funding and a permanent position at a university and what will help us stay in the system. Part of this system (the elephant in the room) are major science publishers, who charge astronomical amounts for access and/or publication, and companies that determine the impact factors of those publications based on the citations they receive. Journals.

one of these companies clarification (to which the cases disclosed by this means) also makes its own list of those 40 majorthe Highly cited researchers (HCR)And More than 6,938 cited researchers were listed in strict order and according to discipline. Citation is not an indisputable indicator of quality, but an indicator of popularity: for publications (JIF) or for researchers (HCR). The list of “famous” scientists is openly accessible, but in order to enter lists of good (“popular”) journals (Quotation report from the journalInstitutions or countries have to pay out large seven-figure sums as well.

On the other hand, researchers are affiliated with universities or research organizations that also have them volitional stimuli To attract students, raise their prestige, or obtain other recognition. The element determining the quality (popularity) of a university is again more lists, in this case, Categories Universities rank priorities according to criteria of a varied nature and base, in the case of measuring their absolute excellence, on arbitrary indicators such as the receipt of a Nobel Prize, or one such highly cited individual. As if one person could legitimize an entire organization!

Publishing articles in specialized journals helps us get funding, a permanent position at the university and allows us to stay in the system (the elephant in the room).

What the cases revealed in this newspaper It is nothing more than the tip of the iceberg of endless nonsense which, little by little, is making our present scientific system rot, in the heat of what seems like a round-the-clock bargain. Researchers conduct research, funded by public funds, the public institutions they work for pay large publishers many times over (to read and publish), researchers also review scientific papers for free, companies like Clarivate or classification From Shanghai they describe in their lists who the good guys (and by comparison, the bad guys) are.

In the past 30 years, since we’ve lived with the Internet, we’ve changed the way we communicate, shop, teach, learn, and even flirt. Yet we continue to fund and evaluate science in the same way as in the last century. Young researchers, who are underpaid and pressured by the system, aspire to get out of the programme sing In their laboratories they are trying to change the world into a slate 40 major.

But, as the Argentines say, “the problem is not with the pig, but with the person who feeds it,” and consciously or not, we all feed this outdated and ineffective system, caught in a deadly embrace with scientific publishers and Categories University students Meanwhile, we fill the coffers of publishers and other companies in the environment that, like Clarivate, sell us their products and tell us, for the sake of profit, what quality is. Who can push and push and enter the flawed elite of popularity. But science says so New Law 17/2022 in Spainshould be a “public good” and should be given back to the researchers who make them and to the community that pays for them.

In the past 30 years, from the Internet, we have changed the way we communicate, buy, teach, learn and even flirt, however, we do science in the same way as in the last century

In order for the current scientific system not to rot (more), researchers, institutions, and other agents must break the deathly embrace of science and engage to change the way we communicate scientific knowledge and, above all, how we assess the merit of researchers beyond Leaves. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Although we are victims and accomplices of the current system, we are also aware of its weaknesses and, to a greater or lesser extent, want to change it.

In this sense, after a long discussion with the agents involved and facilitated by the Open Science Unit of the European Commission, the Alliance for the Advancement of Research Assessment (Kwara). In the past four months, more than 500 organizations have joined CoARA, adopting, Among other obligationsIt is to avoid using classifications in evaluating research. CoARA is a necessary step forward, to analyze research evaluation reform in a coherent, collective, necessary and global manner, so that we can move from a quantitative evaluation system exclusive to journals, and middle of the paperto a system that includes other research products, other indicators, as well as qualitative narratives that identify the specific contributions of the researcher and value all academic talent and in all disciplines.

As I told my friends: science is like a parachute, if you don’t open it won’t help us. In the age of the Web, artificial intelligence, and data, another scientific discipline is possible and, moreover, necessary.

Eva Mendes She is tenured professor in the Department of Library Sciences at the University Carlos III of Madrid and director of OpenScienceLab, the open science metainvestigation group.

You can follow Theme in FacebookAnd Twitter And instagramor register here to receive Weekly newsletter.