Difference between revisions of "Resource:B57a73bf-efec-469a-9651-8338825ecaf6"

From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=“Climate skeptic” journal shuttered following “malpractice” in “nepotistic” reviewer selections |Is About=. |Important Becau...")
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=“Climate skeptic” journal shuttered following “malpractice” in “nepotistic” reviewer selections
+
|Title='Climate Skeptic' Journal Shuttered Following 'Malpractice' in 'Nepotistic' Reviewer Selections
|Is About=.
+
|Is About=This is a factual case. The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) was started by ''Copernicus Publications'' in March 2013. After publishing a special issue on  ''“Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”''  was published a series of concerns about the selection of referees (nepotism) were raised. This resulted in Copernicus Publications shutting down the journal.
|Important Because=.
+
|Important Because=Open, transparent, and fair reviewer selection  is challenging.
  
 
+
There is a problem of polarized research. <ref>Ploug, Thomas, and Søren Holm. "Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities." ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' 41.4 (2015): 356-358.</ref><ref>Earp, Brian D. "Addressing polarisation in science." ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' 41.9 (2015): 782-784.</ref>
Website
+
<references />
 
+
|Important For=Researchers; Doctoral students; Editors
Factual
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Link
 
{{Link

Latest revision as of 11:02, 20 October 2020

Cases

'Climate Skeptic' Journal Shuttered Following 'Malpractice' in 'Nepotistic' Reviewer Selections

What is this about?

This is a factual case. The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) was started by Copernicus Publications in March 2013. After publishing a special issue on “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts” was published a series of concerns about the selection of referees (nepotism) were raised. This resulted in Copernicus Publications shutting down the journal.

Why is this important?

Open, transparent, and fair reviewer selection is challenging.

There is a problem of polarized research. [1][2]

  1. Ploug, Thomas, and Søren Holm. "Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities." Journal of Medical Ethics 41.4 (2015): 356-358.
  2. Earp, Brian D. "Addressing polarisation in science." Journal of Medical Ethics 41.9 (2015): 782-784.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6