Stephan M. Hacker’s Post

Science should be transparent and accessible to all.       That is why we practice open science.       Over the last years, the share of our #OpenAccess publications has constantly increased. Currently, we publish almost all our publications openly.     The result?      Our publications are among the most trusted in the global scientific community and directly inform the #EU policies.      Find more about this here: https://lnkd.in/eJ3hWE4S  #Science4Policy #EUScience 

DIFFICULTIES FOR BRAZILIAN RESEARCHERS IN PAYING HIGH-LEVEL JOURNAL COSTS A researcher living in Brazil faces significant challenges in develop new studies and publishing their paper in high-level journals due to a constant lack of financial support. Often, they have to use their own savings to cover both research expenses and high cost of publication fees. In a country like Brazil, where the national budget for education, science, and technology is frequently frozen, cut, or lost to corruption, increasing the number of articles published in high-level journals is particularly difficult. This article offers a thoughtful reflection on these issues and attempts to answer the following question: "Is open-access publishing pricing scientists out?"

Science for policy is not only an abstract idea to us. It is what we do daily.      Our publications receive the most citations in EU policy documents, compared to other influential research bodies in Europe and beyond.      This shows how the European Commission regularly consults our scientific work, to inform and guide their decisions.      Find out more about the impact of our science: https://lnkd.in/eJ3hWE4S      #Science4Policy #EuScience  #EUPolicy

New #ScienceBitesBlogging! #SciPolBites is a series of reflections from NSPN members about current issues in science and policy. In this #SciPolBite, we explored who is supporting us scientifically, who has science's back, and how we know who to trust (or not) with our science. Our members discuss scientific publishing and the industries funding research to ask questions about whether the systems in place are truly promoting scientific progress for all. Read more on our blog: https://ow.ly/SuB150RyVaJ

A new article based on participatory research in the H2020 DESIRA project. We cover several challenges in participation, especially when it involves stakeholders in co-theorizing and co-producing research outputs. What we found is that the current project structure creates challenges for co-theorizing with stakeholders, with researchers in the unenviable position of trying to keep their research relevant to stakeholders while also juggling scientific relevance and project requirements. With co-authors Lies Debruyne Laurens Klerkx & Dessein Joost https://lnkd.in/eaAe7Gby

An important paper by Daniel van der Velden and colleagues. In an academic environment where successes are celebrated and failures are often overlooked, the title of this paper already reveals its core argument: the clash of stakeholder interests and scientific outcomes in the context of #H2020 projects. Behind fancy terms like #cocreation, #livinglabs, and other 'participatory' #multiactor approaches, there are a myriad of potential pitfalls. This is not a plea to discard these participatory approaches, but rather a warning to remain vigilant and critical of the processes involved. It is also a strong call to report on #failures as well. They are just as instructive as success stories ! Laurens Klerkx Lies Debruyne INSPIRA Department of Agricultural Economics - Ghent University Faculty of Bioscience Engineering UGent ILVO (Instituut voor Landbouw, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek)

🤩 New paper: Participation and co-theorising: How stakeholder interests and scientific outputs clash in the Horizon 2020 multi-actor approach By: Daniel van der Velden, Lies Debruyne, Laurens Klerkx and Dessein Joost More information 👇 Faculty of Bioscience Engineering UGent INSPIRA Universiteit Gent Instituut voor Landbouw, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek (ILVO) Wageningen University & Research

I suspect that one of the many motivations that for-profit journals have against reforming open science to make it more freely transparent is because they're afraid of the embarrassment of retractions because they think that it will erode their prestige and affect their bottom line. Retractions are a part of science! Nothing is final - or settled science - there is no such thing as a definitive or putative version of record. it's an invention created by the for-profit publishers to provide them with legitimacy on the record and it is anti- scientific. Move to a model of a record of versions and provide opportunity for scholars to engage freely and transparently in revision the way that science intends.

Two important takeaways from this Scientific American article by Peter Aldhous: 1. The arduous journey it takes to get a paper retracted 2. Pinning blame for research misconduct on an individual & the other, broader reasons for misconduct happening in the first place (including lab culture, toxicity, etc.) #ResearchIntegrity #ResearchMisconduct #Ethics #Retractions #ResearchCulture

My research is available on ResearchGate (PDF) Feralization: The Evolutionary Cycles of Societal Resilience and Decay https://lnkd.in/edeyU5n8