Scientific Scholarly Communication: Moving Forward Through Open Discussions
- 785 Downloads
The formal scientific communication system has continued to evolve over the last 350 years, shaped by economic factors, geopolitical events, and technological advances that are taking place at an unprecedented pace. However, throughout this evolutionary process, the discussions, debates, and deliberations that have taken place can be considered the most significant factors in improving the quality of the scientific scholarly communication system. This chapter touches on some of the discussions, debates, and conscientious deliberations that have occurred and currently taking place influencing toward a more efficient scholarly communication system needed to enhance the quality and the speed of scientific progress.
KeywordsScientific communication Open access Open data Genetic data sharing Scientific scholarly impact Intellectual property rights
- Bishop, D. V. M. (2016). Open research practices: unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them. (Commentary on the Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative). Open Science, 3(4), 160109.Google Scholar
- Boulton, G. (2014). The open data imperative. Insights, 27(2).Google Scholar
- Chew, M., Villanueva, E. V., & Van Der Weyden, M. B. (2007). Life and times of the impact factor: Retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100(3), 142–150. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.3.142 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Toole, A. A. (2014). Delay and secrecy: Does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? (0960-6491). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-31376
- Grimes, H. D., Payumo, J., & Jones, K. (2011). Opinion: Food security needs sound IP. The Scientist. Available at: http://the-scientist.com/2011/07/20/opinion-food-security-needs-sound-ip/. Last accessed 19 December 2011.
- Harmon, A. (2010). Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. New York Times, 21, 2010.Google Scholar
- Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
- Levenson, D. (2010). New research may help differentiate similar diagnoses. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 152a(2), ix. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33285
- Liptak, A. (2013, June 13). Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
- Markel, H. (1997). Scientific advances and social risks: historical perspectives of genetic screening programs for sickle cell disease, Tay-Sachs disease, neural tube defects, and Down syndrome, 1970–1997. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/10001733/genetic-testing-report/
- Merrill, S. A., & Mazza, A.-M. (2011). Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
- Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., & Stern, S. (2009). Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation. (Working paper No. 14819). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14819.
- Reichman, O. J., Jones, M. B., & Schildhauer, M. P. (2011). Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science, 331(6018).Google Scholar
- Roberts, J. L. (2010). Preempting Discrimination: Lessons from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(2).Google Scholar
- Rousseau, R., & Ye, F., Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(26), 3288–3290.Google Scholar
- Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services.Google Scholar