{"id":5893,"date":"2012-01-02T10:49:16","date_gmt":"2012-01-02T08:49:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=5893"},"modified":"2012-01-02T10:51:04","modified_gmt":"2012-01-02T08:51:04","slug":"crossmarks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2012\/01\/crossmarks\/","title":{"rendered":"Crossmarks"},"content":{"rendered":"

Papers are not sacred – this what I have been advocating even after having personal distress after commenting on a PLoS ONE paper<\/a>. Nevertheless, the new Nature editorial<\/a> supports my view<\/p>\n

What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

where Crossmark<\/a> may jump in<\/p>\n

… there is no such thing as a “final version” of a scholarly publication. A scholarly publication can be enhanced, amended, corrected, updated, withdrawn and even retracted. The publisher, in its role of certifying the scholarly literature, has a duty to keep the scholarly record sound and free from fraudulent or incorrect data. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

CrossMark is currently in a pilot phase while several publishers have added CrossMark logos to their live publication sites. Unfortunately, CrossMark accepts only comments, enhancements, corrections, updates, by a “publisher (who) must be a CrossRef member in good standing”. So, although science blogs are vital for scientific progress, they are out of this game (by now). <\/p>\n\n

 <\/p>\n

\n CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 26.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Papers are not sacred – this what I have been advocating even after having personal distress after commenting on a PLoS ONE paper. Nevertheless, the new Nature editorial supports my view What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It … Continue reading Crossmarks<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[1644,1164],"class_list":["post-5893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","tag-fraud","tag-integrity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5893"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5893\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5897,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5893\/revisions\/5897"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}