Obviously, the process by which papers are accepted or rejected by peer reviewers is all to do with scientific quality and the scientific community is built around a common understanding of what that means. Or is it?
Tensions over the idea of open science will only resolve themselves when an ‘open’ model of science abandons the idea of authoritative research statements as represented by the ‘scientific paper’ altogether.
Why it is misguided for open access advocates to bash paywall publishers for asserting their copyright.
Contrary to Steven Pinker’s recent attempt to rehabilitate “scientism”, I argue that the word should stand for a persistent belief that the trustworthiness of institutionalised science is a matter of fact rather than something that needs to be subject to continuous empirical re-evaluation.
Is it not time that science metrics shift their focus from what is worthy of attention to who has a good track record of solving problems and what information in the literature can be regarded as trustworthy because successful problem solvers have successfully relied upon it?
...nature is not a book 