Ana Maranhão’s Post

Open access publishing is transforming research, but the full benefits will only be seen if researchers everywhere, especially those in low- and middle-income countries, can take full advantage of it.      While open access policies have enhanced the flow of data and driven wider availability of key findings, deeper changes to local research systems are still needed for researchers in low-income countries to benefit. https://lnkd.in/gkcwU5NC

🌟 Are you a researcher looking to bridge the gap between academia and industry? Check out our latest blog post on commercialising research. Learn how to identify compatible collaborators and build strategic partnerships to drive innovation and create real-world impact. Read the full post here: https://lnkd.in/eQTumgc2

https://lnkd.in/gjFuvkRW Deep-seated aspects of local research systems need to be uprooted to ensure that researchers in low-income countries can harness the advantages of open access.

This report from Enago 5th global Research Risk Assessment study reveals critical findings on the intricate relationship between open science, financial considerations, and the global scholarly funding awareness. While open-access publishing has garnered immense popularity among scholars, some stakeholders remain cautious or uninformed about its benefits. Could these concerns increase geographical inequality and lower the quality of journals? As we navigate these challenges, our report has heightened awareness of the need for inclusive education and equal access to credible and meaningful research. https://lnkd.in/dexBWscA

Recent studies indicate that, especially in emerging markets, transitions to #OpenAccess at scholarly journals strongly depend on the presence of country- or industry-wide Open Science policies or incentives https://ow.ly/RCzA50RBUVZ

Should all research be peer-reviewed? No! But all the research should be reproduced. In an ideal world, no results could be published if they have not been independently verified, i.e., reproduced. Let’s muse for a moment over the benefits of this Peer Research Validation process: 1. Two papers, published side by side, reporting the same result build the community's trust in the findings. Finally we can address the reproducibility crisis. 2. Conflicting results—such as "we found" vs. "we did not find"—can be published side by side, warning the community about the controversy and promoting further studies. 3. As all researchers dedicate some time to replicating their peers' work — about half as many topics published at the same time. Fewer topics → more focused reading. 4. Reproducing an existing study is an excellent—and arguably, the only—way for young scientists to learn, leading to more efficient learning and quicker researcher maturity. 5. An invitation to reproduce a study serves as validation of a person’s or group's expertise. Peer review becomes open and transparent—our long-term dream! 6. A lack of interest from research groups in validating a result serves as a practical "downvote" for that result → no more subjective editorial rejections! 7. Journals become the conductors of the research orchestra. The editorial teams identify suitable expert groups, free of conflicts of interest, capable of reproducing the studies. They essentially become research enablers and promoters. Such a way to organize the publishing process is, of course, drastically different from what we have now. Research will need funding, and journals will partner with agencies to provide quick, short-term, and targeted financial support. As a physicist, I understand what “inertia” is and how difficult it can be to stop the freight train of publishing practices. As an entrepreneur, I embrace the challenge of “doing the impossible.” Who else is in? #peerreview #reproducibility #stopthetrain

Reforming academic publishing is a perennial topic that has seen moderate patchy progress with innovations like open access commensurate with an annoying but niche problem affecting only researchers. This article by the Center for Global Development argues that the harm (or lost potential good) are much more important than widely thought as research plays a role in nearly every major problem we face and is hampered by this system. Efforts to improve the system have therefore been neglected while there are tangible practical improvements that can be made that would deliver significant value to society. https://lnkd.in/eJhk9HqE

Recent studies indicate that, especially in emerging markets, transitions to #OpenAccess at scholarly journals strongly depend on the presence of country- or industry-wide Open Science policies or incentives https://ow.ly/KARf50RBUU5

All research should be peer-reviewed.

Recent studies indicate that, especially in emerging markets, transitions to #OpenAccess at scholarly journals strongly depend on the presence of country- or industry-wide Open Science policies or incentives https://ow.ly/WPBC50RBV6y