Author Archives: Stephen

Science: better messy than messed up

Posted on 9 May 2013 by Stephen

I am fascinated by the psychology of scientific fraudsters. What drives these people? If you are smart enough to fake results, surely you have the ability to do research properly? You should also be clever enough to realise that one day … Continue reading →

Posted in Diederk Stapel, fraud, Impact Factors, Norovirus, Scientific Life, Structural Biology | Comments Off on Science: better messy than messed up

Libel Reform – smells like victory

Posted on 24 April 2013 by Stephen

For those few resilient readers who have weathered the year-long storm of open access posts at Reciprocal Space and still look in here occasionally for reports of the libel reform campaign, there is good news. Within days I should be … Continue reading →

Posted in Defamation Bill, Libel Reform, Parliament, simon singh | Comments Off on Libel Reform – smells like victory

A vision for a better future – using new tools of openness and transparency to improve the scientific process

Posted on 22 April 2013 by Stephen

This is a guest post by Pete Binfield and Jason Hoyt, co-founders of the open access journal PeerJ. I don’t make a habit of running posts from private companies here at Reciprocal Space but have been impressed by the innovative … Continue reading →

Posted in Open Access | Comments Off on A vision for a better future – using new tools of openness and transparency to improve the scientific process

Impact Factors — the revised RCUK open access guidelines

Posted on 9 April 2013 by Stephen

It has happened. Yesterday RCUK published the revised guidelines on its new open access policy and, as requested by this blog and everyone who signed up in support, the document (PDF) now includes, on page one no less, a statement … Continue reading →

Posted in alexandra saxon, Blogging, Open Access, RCUK | Comments Off on Impact Factors — the revised RCUK open access guidelines

Impact Factors — Letter to RCUK

Posted on 21 March 2013 by Stephen

Following my post of last week asking RCUK to include in the guidelines on their new open access policy a statement disavowing the use of impact factors in assessing funding applications, I wanted to thank everyone who registered their support. … Continue reading →

Posted in impact factor, Open Access, RCUK | Comments Off on Impact Factors — Letter to RCUK

Impact factors — RCUK provides a chance to act

Posted on 14 March 2013 by Stephen

If I had more time, this post would be shorter. But it explains how we have an opportunity to get UK research councils to help break the corrosive dependence of researchers on impact factors. Please at least skim all the … Continue reading →

Posted in Academic publishing, impact factor, Open Access, RCUK | Comments Off on Impact factors — RCUK provides a chance to act

Royal Society Meeting on Open Access in the UK: What Willetts Wants

Posted on 27 February 2013 by Stephen

After all the excitement of open access (OA) developments last Friday, there was a chance to take stock this Monday at the Royal Society’s conference on “Open access in the UK and what it means for scientific research”. The meeting, … Continue reading →

Posted in David Sweeney, David Willetts, HEFCE, Open Access, RCUK, Royal Society, Tom Welton | Comments Off on Royal Society Meeting on Open Access in the UK: What Willetts Wants

Continental drift: important open access developments in the UK and US

Posted on 24 February 2013 by Stephen

Last Friday was a big day for open access — it felt like a kind of transition. In the morning the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords (the unelected second chamber in the UK parliament) published the … Continue reading →

Posted in House of Lords, Open Access, RCUK, White house, willetts | Comments Off on Continental drift: important open access developments in the UK and US

The Royal Institution: not time to move on

Posted on 7 February 2013 by Stephen

Less than a week after the Royal Institution announced that it was contemplating the sale of its historic home in Albermarle Street, Nature published an editorial criticising the 200 year old organisation for having lost its science communication mojo in … Continue reading →

Posted in History of Science, Open Access, Royal Institution | Comments Off on The Royal Institution: not time to move on

Response to House of Commons Committee Call for Evidence on Open Access

Posted on 6 February 2013 by Stephen

This week it is the turn of the House of Commons to investigate the UK policy on open access. No-one seems to be quite sure if they are co-ordinating things with the House of Lords, which was looking into this … Continue reading →

Posted in Open Access | Comments Off on Response to House of Commons Committee Call for Evidence on Open Access