This talk examines the phenomenon of predatory publishers and journals and the threats they pose to researchers, to research, and to scholarly communication. The speaker will also describe his work identifying predatory publishers, an effort that lasted from 2012 to early 2017. Selectivity in scholarly publishing is disappearing and peer review is failing. Consequently, anyone — including a promoter of pseudo-science — can augment his CV and earn academic credit, thanks to predatory publishers and predatory conference organizers.
Research on innovation has helped to shed light on how firms and other organisations establish networks that allow them to share knowledge and generate new ideas. However relatively less attention has been paid to the internal dynamics within firms, particularly the interaction between different specialisations and knowledge bases. This is particularly true in the context of post-Fordist theoretical approaches, which tend to assume that specialisation, rather than diversification, is the key to innovation.
This presentation investigates university research governance in relation to demands from national research policies. Specifically, it studies the scientific journal system in Colombia –SJSC-, which is used as an incentive to promote knowledge production and dissemination. Journal systems are used in R&D evaluation (Shapira & Kuhlmann, 2003), and performance appraisals (Binswanger, 2015). These systems are affected by international and national demands that produce tensions in the governance of research.
Cooperatives (coops) play an important role in both economic and social development. Since the nineteenth century, coops have been providing goods and services to their members, but potentially also other customers and suppliers. But nowadays, coops face big challenges, coops address responding to the society needs and market failures. At the same time, they are solving problems for customers, members and society in innovative ways.
Global Public Health Unit, University of Edinburgh
There is, according to a much debated recent paper, ‘a perfect storm’ gathering around the concept of ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), ‘generated by the insurgence of several concurrent crises’ (Saltelli and Giampietro, 2015: p1). This includes growing public distrust in science and academic expertise following the failings of mainstream economics that were highlighted by the 2008 global economic crisis, as well as broader indicators of public dissatisfaction with traditional policy elites.
Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai Japan
Scientific evidence is used in courts of law as a basis of judgment because of its independence of the parties in conflict. I will show the inevitable, fundamental conflict between the fair treatment of scientific evidence and the adversarial system by citing a case study on the protocol of cross-examination (2008) in which the authors were an expert witness (T.H.) in a court case concerning the effects of electromagnetic fields on health. After the examination in chief, the defendant’s attorney attempted to fabricate a scientific fact by asking T.H.