manisha boosted
El Duvelle
@elduvelle@neuromatch.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
hypebot boosted
Dr. Anna Latour
@anna@mathstodon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp last week
Public Knowledge Project
@PublicKnowledgeProject@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Infographic titled “The Drain of Scientific Publishing,” describing four problems in scholarly publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control. Money: Illustration of flying dollar bills and buildings beside a bank. Text explains that for-profit publishers charge unreasonable reading and publishing fees disconnected from production costs, noting that Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis made $US 12 billion profit from 2019–2024. Time: Illustration of a stressed researcher surrounded by stacks of papers and a clock. Text states researchers spend enormous time as authors, reviewers, and editors, maintaining a system that prioritizes quantity over quality, causing burnout and reduced rigor. Trust: Text describes commercial pressures to publish quickly, enabling low-quality and fraudulent papers, eroding public confidence. Control: Text explains that rankings like journal impact factor and h-index dictate success, with infrastructures biased toward English journals and controlled by for-profit companies. At the bottom, a stop-sign graphic reads “Stop the Drain.” Additional text calls for altering incentives and ownership of publishing, re-communalizing scholarly publishing, building community-led systems, preventing unreasonable profits, and using existing open models and infrastructures (e.g., preprints, diamond journals, OJS, SciELO). A final statement urges aligning research assessment with open, community-led publishing.
Infographic titled “The Drain of Scientific Publishing,” describing four problems in scholarly publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control. Money: Illustration of flying dollar bills and buildings beside a bank. Text explains that for-profit publishers charge unreasonable reading and publishing fees disconnected from production costs, noting that Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis made $US 12 billion profit from 2019–2024. Time: Illustration of a stressed researcher surrounded by stacks of papers and a clock. Text states researchers spend enormous time as authors, reviewers, and editors, maintaining a system that prioritizes quantity over quality, causing burnout and reduced rigor. Trust: Text describes commercial pressures to publish quickly, enabling low-quality and fraudulent papers, eroding public confidence. Control: Text explains that rankings like journal impact factor and h-index dictate success, with infrastructures biased toward English journals and controlled by for-profit companies. At the bottom, a stop-sign graphic reads “Stop the Drain.” Additional text calls for altering incentives and ownership of publishing, re-communalizing scholarly publishing, building community-led systems, preventing unreasonable profits, and using existing open models and infrastructures (e.g., preprints, diamond journals, OJS, SciELO). A final statement urges aligning research assessment with open, community-led publishing.
Infographic titled “The Drain of Scientific Publishing,” describing four problems in scholarly publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control. Money: Illustration of flying dollar bills and buildings beside a bank. Text explains that for-profit publishers charge unreasonable reading and publishing fees disconnected from production costs, noting that Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis made $US 12 billion profit from 2019–2024. Time: Illustration of a stressed researcher surrounded by stacks of papers and a clock. Text states researchers spend enormous time as authors, reviewers, and editors, maintaining a system that prioritizes quantity over quality, causing burnout and reduced rigor. Trust: Text describes commercial pressures to publish quickly, enabling low-quality and fraudulent papers, eroding public confidence. Control: Text explains that rankings like journal impact factor and h-index dictate success, with infrastructures biased toward English journals and controlled by for-profit companies. At the bottom, a stop-sign graphic reads “Stop the Drain.” Additional text calls for altering incentives and ownership of publishing, re-communalizing scholarly publishing, building community-led systems, preventing unreasonable profits, and using existing open models and infrastructures (e.g., preprints, diamond journals, OJS, SciELO). A final statement urges aligning research assessment with open, community-led publishing.
Blair Fix boosted
Tom Stafford
@tomstafford@mastodon.online  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
hypebot boosted
Alx 🐈
@alx@mastodon.design  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
Tom Stafford
@tomstafford@mastodon.online  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The Authors requested the retraction of the paper after detecting a critical error in the preprocessing script. Specifically, when selecting trial types to average reaction times for the calculation of the approach bias the Authors mistakenly treated a filtering variable - containing values of “0” and “1” - as logical, rather than as character-coded values. As a result, instead of averaging across all relevant trials in a condition, the approach bias was calculated based on the first trials only. To assess how severely this error affects the findings, the Authors re-ran all analyses from the published manuscript using the corrected preprocessing routine. Unfortunately, this correction substantially altered the results. The Authors found that the key findings are not robust to the corrected approach - with the only result remaining being that the link between approach bias and intake is moderated by dietary intentions. The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Alx 🐈
@alx@mastodon.design  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
J Miller boosted
Dr Pen
@DrPen@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp last month
Alessia Visconti
@alesssia@mas.to  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Dorothée Goetze
@dorotheegoetze@scholar.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Dr. Anna Latour
@anna@mathstodon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp last week
Home Login