"Only when enough scientists engage in science transparency and post-publication peer review, will the problem of predatory publishers become obsolete."Tips til eldre forskere fra Schneider er følgende:
- Bruk åpen post-publisert fagfellevurdering.
- Offentliggjør fagfellevurderingsrapporter.
- Still krav om åpen fagfellevurdering til utgiver.
- Del datagrunnlaget.
- Publiser arbeidsnotater.
- Publiser datamaterialet åpent.
- Delta i replikasjon av studier.
- Formidle til studenter og samfunnet.
First of all, I am glad that it is now understood that Open Access (OA) is not a final goal in itself, but the first key step to achieve reliable and transparent academic research. Open Science is about more than just open access to scientific literature. It is even more that openness of published data. It is about the openness of the entire research and the researchers. Academic research is riddled with back-room dealings and hidden conflicts of interests at peer reviews and scientist evaluations as well as with irreproducibility of published results, unacceptably widespread over- or even false interpretation of experimental data and even misconduct. Opening scientific literature without changing what is actually being published, without addressing the way how science is performed and presented, and how scientists are evaluated, could easily result in the OA revolution being hijacked by utterly wrong people. The currently hotly debated issue of predatory publishing and the scientists involved therein is just one example to be named here.