Ieri, Federico A. mi segnalava l’articolo del Corriere su Google che sfama il repubblicano Jim “Climate change is the greatest hoax” Inhofe.
Ne parlavo con amici americani, dicevano che google lost its cool months ago, i suoi occhiali sapevano di La CIA ti spia. Hai visto che zerbino con la NSA? Sfama anche il CEI e la Camera di Commercio che vogliono processare per tradimento del capitalismo Usa i climatologi denunciati al Senato da un maccart-omofobo-creazionista pagato da BigOil & Weapons che si chiamava… si chiamava…
Don’t be evil è uno slogan carino, quasi vien da crederci. Sì, come a ethical oil e beyond petroleum. Ma la piccola Google è perseguitata dal governo federale cui il CEI, la CamCom e i repubblicani vogliono togliere poteri e fondi, così smette di turbare il business dei Grandi Inquinatori. I nemici dei suoi nemici ecc. e l’innocente fa bene a comprarsene un po’.
No? Allora perché non glielo facciamo notare usando duckduckgo per qualche giorno?
*
Lato positivo
Su PLoS One, i soliti Casadevall & Fang più Grant Steen, si chiedono “Why can’t Guid… Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?” La risposta si capisce dalle figure (il calo recente è dovuto al lag time tra pubblicazione e ritrattazione):
- The rate of publication has increased, with a concomitant increase in the rate of retraction (Fig. 1).
- Editors are retracting articles significantly faster now than in the past (Fig. 2).
- The reasons for retraction have expanded to include plagiarism and duplicate publication.
- Journals are reaching further back in time to retract flawed work.
- There has been an increase in the number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction (Fig. 3).
- Discovery of fraud by an author prompts reevaluation of an author’s entire body of work.
- Greater scrutiny of high-profile publications has had a modest impact on retractions (Table 1).
The recent spike in retractions thus appears to be a consequence of changes both in institutional policy and in the behavior of individual authors.
Senza contare che è migliorato il software anti -frode.
*
Open Peer Review
In ottobre Open Scholar attiverà la piattaforma Libre per revisioni pubbliche “guidate dagli autori”, perché:
It is time to challenge the idea that scientific peer review can only be arranged and handled by journal editors. We propose a research assessment process complementary to journal-handled peer review where authors themselves can invite experts to openly evaluate their work.
Come:
The Open Peer Review Protocol describes in detail the requirements for implementing author-guided open peer review. The key features are:
- Authors invite expert peers to formally evaluate their work.
- Reviewers who accept submit a detailed qualitative and quantitative assessment of the work.
- The reviewer’s name and any conflict of interest are publicly disclosed.
- Reviews are published with a creative commons license (or similar) and become publicly available along with the original work.
- Reviews are subject to commentary and evaluation by the entire community.
- Author-guided open peer review can be implemented at any stage of an article’s lifetime: a)before journal submission, (b) during journal peer review (in agreement with the journal’s editor), and (c) after journal publication.
Good luck.