Progress in science depends on new techniques, new discoveries and new ideas, probably in that order (Sydney Brenner}.
Die Dissertation von Giffey hat auf 76 von 205 Seiten Plagiate, was einem Anteil von 37 % aller Seiten entspricht. Laut Vroniplag haben 11 Seiten sogar 50 % – 75 % Plagiatstext und 1 Seite mehr als 75 % (nicht viel anders sieht es mit ihrer FH Masterarbeit aus, die allerdings nicht offiziell überprüft wird).
Am Donnerstag teilte der Präsident der FU, Günter Ziegler, Giffey nun mit, dass die am 30. Oktober 2019 erteilte Rüge zurückgenommen werde und dass sie ihre Promotionsurkunde innerhalb eines Monats nach Bestandskraft der Entziehung zurückzugeben habe. Der Giffey verliehene Doktorgrad sei „durch Täuschung über die Eigenständigkeit ihrer wissenschaftlichen Leistung erworben worden“, heißt es in dem Brief, der der F.A.Z. vorliegt.
Der Berliner SPD und vielen Wählern ist das allerdings völlig egal wie zuverlässig jemand arbeitet – sie wählten Franziska Giffey, die nun gute Chancen regierende Bürgermeisterin von Berlin zu werden.
Die SPD hat die Abgeordnetenhauswahl in Berlin gewonnen, alle Stimmbezirke sind ausgezählt. Die Partei mit Spitzenkandidatin Franziska Giffey erreichte 21,4 Prozent und landete vor den Grünen, die auf 18,9 Prozent kamen.
another interesting find about “Epistemic Trespassing” by N. Ballantine
Epistemic trespassers are thinkers who have competence or expertise to make good judgments in one field, but move to another field where they lack competence—and pass judgment nevertheless. … A few examples …Philosophers are especially wary of intruders on their turf. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has written and lectured on religion. Experts in the philosophy of religion—atheists, agnostics, and theists alike—charge that Dawkins fails to engage with the genuine issues and sets up strawmen as his dialectical opponents. Dawkins appears to overstep his competence as a biologist.
excerpt from the Ratzinger and Habermas meeting 19. Januar 2004 (translated by Tham 2018, p5)
We have seen that there exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous and that make it necessary to see the divine light of reasons as “controlling organ”. Religion must continually allow itself to be purified and structured by reason … There are also pathologies of reason, although mankind in general is not as conscious of this fact today. There is a hubris of reason that is no less dangerous. This why reason, too, must be warned to keep within its proper limits, and it must learn a willingness to listen to the great religious tradition of mankind.
Using data from three separate state university systems, we find that this variable is indeed positively and significantly related to a scholar’s pay, at least in the case of research-oriented higher education institutions. More specifically, we find that an increase in this variable is associated with a 2.8 to 8.9% boost in the salaries of college and university faculty.
1 highly cited paper equals $13,500 in the US which is a large increase from 1986.
The Absurdity of Peer Review. What the pandemic revealed about… | by Mark Humphries | Jun, 2021 | Elemental June 2021
I was reading my umpteenth news story about Covid-19 science, a story about the latest research into how to make indoor spaces safe from infection, about whether cleaning surfaces or changing the air was more important. And it was bothering me. Not because it was dull (which, of course, it was: there are precious few ways to make air filtration and air pumps edge-of-the-seat stuff). But because of the way it treated the science.
You see, much of the research it reported was in the form of pre-prints, papers shared by researchers on the internet before they are submitted to a scientific journal. And every mention of one of these pre-prints was immediately followed by the disclaimer that it had not yet been peer reviewed. As though to convey to the reader that the research therein, the research plastered all over the story, was somehow of less worth, less value, less meaning than the research in a published paper, a paper that had passed peer review.
I expect the business of scientific publishers is slowly coming to an end.
We will need of course peer evaluation but maybe not in the sense that scientific publication is being suppressed by peer review of some elite journals. Some arXiv type PDF deposit plus some elife/twitter/pubpeer score would be fully sufficient. For me and maybe also for many other people in the field.
I found only one relevant blog post about PDFs produced by scientific publishers.
Although PDFs are the main formal output nowadays (no more “papers”) there is basically no standardization which meta data should be included in scientifc PDFs. It’s largely due to the software in the production office what’s in the PDF document — a largely underused resource.
This is at least my experience when working on an image duplication pipeline in scientific papers. But test it yourself ….
Are there any? Sure, a recent Twitter thread asked for it
“The false dichotomy between private interest and public good” by https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/blog
‘Good’ and ‘public benefit’ are subjective concepts and will vary according to individual perceptions and context. Private and public interest are inevitably intertwined and pitting them against each other creates a false dichotomy. For example, if patients cease to trust their clinicians or more broadly the NHS, public good will suffer. Furthermore, extensive exploration of public attitudes towards sharing medical data has found that people approve in general for their data to be used for medical research and for ‘good causes’, whether environmental, social or medical, but they do not approve of their data to be used for commercial purposes or for powerful companies to profit at society’s expense.
Gute Wissenschaft hängt nicht generell davon ab, ob sie mit einer bestimmten Person verknüpft werden kann – Sachverhalte sollte ja eigentlich objektiv reproduzierbar sein (auch wenn Wissenschaftsfunktionäre das anders sehen).
Interessant ist jedenfalls was ein neues Journal nun erlaubt: die anonyme Veröffentlichung.
Cut to 180 years later, and philosophers are again asserting the right to publish under made-up names. But these philosophers, it seems, want to use pseudonyms to do the very thing Kierkegaard accused his contemporaries of doing: abstracting authors out of ethical reality … An “open access, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal specifically created to promote free inquiry on controversial topics,” it will give authors the option to publish their work under a pseudonym “in order to protect themselves from threats to their careers or physical safety.”
In der Tat, nicht alle wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis kann unter gegebenen politischen Verhältnissen veröffentlicht werden. Es wird jedenfalls spannend werden
Pseudonymity is not an inherently bad thing. Apart from focusing the reader on the argument rather than the author, it can, in many cases, give a say to people who could otherwise not participate in public discourse.
which is quote from Vinay Prasad in a new Atlantic article
Many papers serve no purpose, advance no agenda, may not be correct, make no sense, and are poorly read. But they are required for promotion
More by this author