tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hub_feeds/1844/feed_itemsConnotea: tomolijhoek's bookmarks matching tag oa.new2012-12-07T08:38:21-05:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/692332012-12-07T08:38:21-05:002012-12-07T08:38:21-05:00tomolijhoek<span><div> </div></span><a href="http://access.okfn.org/2012/12/04/open-access-a-remedy-against-bad-science/" title="Open Access: a remedy against bad science">Open Access: a remedy against bad science</a><div>Tom Olijhoek</div><div>
<span>@ccess</span>, (<span>04 Dec 2012</span>)</div><div>open access offers a solution against scientific fraud</div><div>
<span>Posted by <a href="http://www.connotea.org/user/tomolijhoek" title="tomolijhoek">tomolijhoek</a> (who is an author)</span> <span>to <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.new" title="oa.new">oa.new</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa" title="oa">oa</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/fraud" title="fraud">fraud</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/access" title="access">access</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/Open" title="Open">Open</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/science" title="science">science</a></span> <span>on <a href="http://www.connotea.org/date/2012-12-04" title="Tue Dec 04 2012">Tue Dec 04 2012</a> at 14:51 UTC</span> | <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/908a4901a087b0e28c4844735d793298">info</a> | <a title="Results powered by Proximic">related</a>
</div>Open Access: a remedy against bad science"open access offers a solution against scientific fraud" Posted by tomolijhoek (who is an author) to oa.new oa fraud access Open science on Tue Dec 04 2012tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/417682012-08-21T09:12:07-04:002012-08-21T09:12:07-04:00tomolijhoek<span><div> </div></span><a href="http://access.okfn.org/news/" title="News | @ccess">News | @ccess</a><div>access.okfn.org</div><div>very nice article on open access in major german newaspaper</div><div>
<span>Posted by <a href="http://www.connotea.org/user/tomolijhoek" title="tomolijhoek">tomolijhoek</a> and <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/641d0ff3809f11c3a308c3b6b7e2583b">1 other</a> with <a href="http://www.connotea.org/comments/uri/641d0ff3809f11c3a308c3b6b7e2583b">1 comment</a></span> <span>to <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.new" title="oa.new">oa.new</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openscience" title="openscience">openscience</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa" title="oa">oa</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openaccess" title="openaccess">openaccess</a></span> <span>on <a href="http://www.connotea.org/date/2012-08-21" title="Tue Aug 21 2012">Tue Aug 21 2012</a> at 09:22 UTC</span> | <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/641d0ff3809f11c3a308c3b6b7e2583b">info</a> | <a title="Results powered by Proximic">related</a>
</div>News | @ccess"very nice article on open access in major german newaspaper" Posted by tomolijhoek and 1 other with 1 comment to oa.new openscience oa openaccess on Tue Aug 21 2012tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/202312012-05-18T06:23:07-04:002012-08-20T17:37:40-04:00abernardOpen Access: Not just a matter for scientists“‘Eric Johnson is an engineering professional working as a patent facilitator for a multinational company. One of his jobs is to find information and ‘connect the dots’ related to intellectual property of competitors, to develop research strategies for his company. He is also a multiple occurrence Testicular Cancer survivor who used the medical literature to research his condition and inform his treatment. He says: ‘I do not believe I would be alive today if it were not for the information that can only be accessed by the layman (patient) in online sources’. This is just one story of many on the website WhoNeedsAccess, where scientists and non-scientists speak out about their need for access to information. Information that is often inaccessible without expensive subscriptions to scientific journals or payment of € 20-30 per publication. The website is the initiative of Mike Taylor, a scientist and open access advocate, and member of the @ccess Initiative, a group dedicated to the promotion of open access to scientific publications and data for everyone, scientists and non-scientists... So what is in fact happening is, that scientists are publishing in these journals, because they THINK they HAVE TO, because OTHERS DO SO, and also because scientific committees continue to JUDGE SCIENTISTS by their NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS IN HIGH_IMPACT JOURNALS-which ARE high impact BECAUSE scientists CONTINUE to publish their best work there. The result is a vicious circle that seems hard to break. In this way publishers have succeeded in creating near ideal market conditions for themselves: a product that is delivered for free (by scientists), a quality assurance system that is delivered for free (peer-review by scientists), and an absurdly high price for access to information that is determined entirely by the same publishers... How profitable publishing Science can be, is illustrated by the following figures: in 2011 Elsevier asked $ 7089 for a subscription to Theoretical Computer Sciences (source: American Mathematical Society). That same year Elsevier also made a profit of £768 million on a turnover of £ 2.1 billion, a margin of 37.3%. 78% of those sales came from selling subscriptions to scientific journals... Another example: during the last 6 years, average prices for access to online content from 2 large scientific publishers have increased by an incredible 145%. For a long time it seemed that the publishers could continue this highly lucrative business without too much trouble. That is …… until 21 January this year when Tim Gowers, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University made an appeal to his colleagues to boycott Elsevier, one of the largest scientific publishers. That call was so successful, that the list currently counts over 11,000 signatures. The call from Tim Gowers has launched what the English press is already calling the Academic Spring. For example, Harvard, one of the richest universities in the world with a total budget of $ 31.7 billion, decided to cancel ‘too expensive’ journal subscriptions because they no longer could afford them, at the same time asking her professors to publish more or less mandatory in open access journals in order to ‘help increase the reputation of these scientific journals’. In England, the Minister of Science David Willetts announced at a conference with the United Kingdom Publishers Association, that all publicly funded research should be published as open access. The government has called on Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia for help in this process. The Wellcome Trust already had issued an announcement to that same effect for the research that it is funding. The World Bank announced last month, that all existing and new publications, reports and documents will be open access by july 2012. And Neelie Kroes, of the EU Digital Agenda said on May 4, 2012 in a speech in Berlin at the Re: publica conference on the topic of ‘Internet Freedom’, that ‘entire industries that were once based on monitoring and blocking could now be rebuilt on the basis of customer friendliness , sharing and interaction.’ A clearer reference to the scientific publishers can hardly be imagined. In the Netherlands, NWO (Dutch Research Organization) has , for a number of years now, been engaged in promoting open access to scientific publications. Last year, a funding of € 5 million has been made available for adapting existing, or creating new open access journals. One of the new journals that will receive funding is the Malaria World Journal, an online open access journal for malaria research of the Netherlands-based MalariaWorld Internet platform. The benefits of open access are economic, social and scientific in nature: Economic advantages. The Committee of Economic Development (CED) in America has concluded that the benefit by the introduction of open access to NIH has outweighed the costs many times over. And in Australia it was found that open access to the information held by the Bureau of Statistics had cost $ 4.6 million in investments and yielded $ 25 million in benefits. In England, thtag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/171722012-05-02T06:34:07-04:002012-09-28T09:16:23-04:00tomolijhoek<span><div> </div></span><a href="http://access.okfn.org/2012/05/02/the-access-principle-revisited-open-access-and-the-knowledge-commons/" title="The Access principle revisited: open access and the Knowledge Commons">The Access principle revisited: open access and the Knowledge Commons</a><div>Tom Olijhoek</div><div>
<span>@ccess</span>, (<span>02 May 2012</span>)</div><div>scientists should not monopolize science (in answer to Stevan Harnad)</div><div>
<span>Posted by <a href="http://www.connotea.org/user/tomolijhoek" title="tomolijhoek">tomolijhoek</a> (who is an author)</span> <span>to <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.@ccess" title="oa.@ccess">oa.@ccess</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.new" title="oa.new">oa.new</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openaccess" title="openaccess">openaccess</a></span> <span>on <a href="http://www.connotea.org/date/2012-05-02" title="Wed May 02 2012">Wed May 02 2012</a> at 09:27 UTC</span> | <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/87a6204b8dd9ffce131e8672cc67898f">info</a> | <a title="Results powered by Proximic">related</a>
</div>The Access principle revisited: open access and the Knowledge Commons"scientists should not monopolize science (in answer to Stevan Harnad)" Posted by tomolijhoek (who is an author) to oa.@ccess oa.new openaccess on Wed May 02 2012tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/148132012-04-25T05:38:07-04:002012-09-28T09:16:23-04:00tomolijhoek<span><div> </div></span><a href="http://access.okfn.org/2012/04/24/game-over-for-old-school-publishers/" title="Game Over for old-school publishers">Game Over for old-school publishers</a><div>Tom Olijhoek</div><div>
<span>@ccess</span>, (<span>24 Apr 2012</span>)</div><div>exposing the Achilles heel of restricted access publishers</div><div>
<span>Posted by <a href="http://www.connotea.org/user/tomolijhoek" title="tomolijhoek">tomolijhoek</a> (who is an author)</span> <span>to <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openaccess" title="openaccess">openaccess</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.@ccess" title="oa.@ccess">oa.@ccess</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.new" title="oa.new">oa.new</a></span> <span>on <a href="http://www.connotea.org/date/2012-04-25" title="Wed Apr 25 2012">Wed Apr 25 2012</a> at 08:18 UTC</span> | <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/3f6f0666d00bdc36c0648797af3b53b3">info</a> | <a title="Results powered by Proximic">related</a>
</div>Game Over for old-school publishers"exposing the Achilles heel of restricted access publishers" Posted by tomolijhoek (who is an author) to openaccess oa.@ccess oa.new on Wed Apr 25 2012tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/136962012-04-19T07:46:09-04:002012-08-20T18:13:08-04:00abernardThe next revolution in Science: Open Access will open new ways to measure scientific output“Open Access will not only change the way that science is done, it will also change the way that science is judged. The way that scientific output is measured today centers around citations. Essentially, on an author level this means the number of publications and citations of an author’s articles (author-level metrics). On a journal level, it means the average number of citations that articles published in that journal have received in a given time period (journal-level metrics). For author-level metrics the Author citation Index has now been replaced by the H-Index that was introduced in 2005 by JE Hirsch. Here the criterion is the number of articles [n] that have received ≥ n citations at a fixed date. In the case of journal level metrics, the Journal Citation Report (JCR) is a databases of all citations in more than 5000 journals—about 15 million citations from 1 million source items per year. From this the journal Impact Factor (JIF) is derived from the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years (numerator) and the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same 2 years (denominator). It effectively represents the average number of citations per year that one can expect to receive by publishing his / her work in a specific journal. Although the JIF is meant for large numbers of publications, it is also often used in the evaluation of individual scientists. Granting agencies and university committees for instance often substitute the actual citation counts for the number of articles that an author has published in high impact journals. The introduction of the H-Index has diminished the use of the JIF for individual scientists but the practice has yet to disappear. Apart from this the JIF has other flaws. Imagine a journal only publishing reviews. Such a journal would evidently get a high impact factor but clearly the real impact of the published papers for the field will be much less than that from original research papers. An easy way around this problem is offered by the use of the H-Index methodology for journals. This is precisely what Google Scholar metrics does. Because Google has only been offering this possibility since 1st april 2012, it is too early to tell whether this will become a widely accepted method for journal-level metrics. The H-Index, Google Scholar metrics and the JIF are all rather good indicators of scientific quality. However, in measuring real-world impact they are seriously flawed. Think for a moment of how impact is felt for whatever random topic you can think of. Everyone of us will consider the publication itself, but probably also downloads, pageviews, blogs, comments, Twitter, different kinds of media and social network activity (Google+, Facebook), among other things. In other words, all activities that can be measured by “talking” through social media and other online activities can be used to give a more realistic impression of the real impact of a given research article. Since talking about articles depends on actually being able to read the articles, this is where open access comes into play... A number of article-level metrics services are currently in the start-up phase. A company called Altmetric is a small London-based start-up focused on making article level metrics easy. They do this by watching social media sites, newspapers and magazines for any mentions of scholarly articles. The result is an ‘altmetric’ score which is a quantitative measure of the quality and quantity of attention that a scholarly article has received. The altmetric score is also implemented in UtopiaDocs, a PDF reader which links an article to a wealth of other online resources like Crossref (DOI registration agency),Mendeley (scientist network), Dryad (data repository), Scibite (tools for drug discovery), Sherpa (OA policies and copyright database) and more...PLoS also uses article level metrics to qualify articles by giving comprehensive information about the usage and reach of published articles onto the articles themselves, so that the entire academic community can assess their value. Different from the above, PLoS provides a complete score build on a combination of altmetrics, citation analysis, post-publication peer-review, pageviews, downloads and other criteria. Finally, Total-Impact also makes extensive use of the analysis of social media and other online statistics, to provide a tool to measure total impact of a given collection of scientific articles, datasets and other collections. Their focus on collections represents still another approach to the problem of evaluating scientific output."tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/114442012-04-11T10:12:14-04:002012-08-20T18:21:15-04:00abernardPoint of No-Return for Open Access“The Open Access movement is gaining momentum by the day... The call for action by Tim Gowers may have marked a point of no return for the open access movement. It almost seemed as if scientists suddenly and collectively came to realize the absurdness of a situation that they had taken for granted for all too long... There has been a lot of media attention recently for open access. The Guardian has put open access on its front page in an article on the Wellcome Trust’s move in favor of open access. Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust said that his organisation ‘would soon adopt a more robust approach with the scientists it funds, to ensure that results are freely available to the public within six months of first publication’. Another major event has been the announcement by the World Bank to ‘become the first major international organization to require open access under copyright licensing from Creative Commons—a non-profit organization whose copyright licenses are designed to accommodate the expanded access to information afforded by the Internet’. Starting april 10, 2012 the World Bank has launched a repository as a ‘one-stop-shop for most of the Bank’s research outputs and knowledge products, providing free and unrestricted access to students, libraries, government officials and anyone interested in the Bank’s knowledge. Additional material, including foreign language editions and links to datasets, will be added in the coming year. This move is especially significant since the bank is not just making their work free of charge, but also free for use and reuse.’ But with the increased media attention comes the danger that we may loose sight of what is meant by the term ‘open access’. With everyone starting talking about ‘open access’ as if this were one clearly defined term, it has become more urgent than ever to have clarity on this issue. It was one of the reasons for the start of the @ccess Initiative where this blog is posted. Because open access can range from somewhat restricted (only free reading) to completely unrestricted (completely free for use and reuse) we have proposed to coin the term @ccess for free and unrestricted access to information in accordance with the BBB definition. Another reason for the @ccess Initiative, and a matter of increasing importance, is the EASE of access to information. When more and more information will become available through open access, the difficulty of finding the right information will also increase. The use of a great number of institutional repositories can only work when all these repositories are adequately cross-linked and working together, a sheer impossible task to accomplish. A better option would be to reduce the number of repositories by limiting these to big (inter)national organisations like WHO, World Bank, FAO and others. Another option still, and one I personally favor, can run in parallel with the last option above. This option is the storage and management of information with specialized scientific communities as I have described in another blog and on the @ccess communities page of this website. To give an example, and the one that we are actually working on: together with MalariaWorld we are developing a comprehensive database of malaria related publications. At the same time we will ask researchers to deposit their manuscripts and data in an open access repository that is linked to the database. This database will also link to open access articles. For restricted access publications we will seek to get as many manuscripts as possible deposited in the database as well. The community will eventually provide open access to all information, provide a platform for collaboration and information exchange and serve as a communication platform for everyone seeking information on, or working on malaria. Other communities can be formed using this model. In this way we would move towards a system of interlinked scientific communities and easy access to pertinent information through these communities. This model would also maximize the chances for scientific collaboration and innovation. The combination of open access and the participation of scientists and citizens in the scientific enterprise will change the way that science is done. Networked scientific communities will have far better chances to tackle the world’s toughest problems, not in the least because open access would give equal opportunities to people in developing countries to profit from,and contribute to science. To quote Peter Suber: ‘What you want is for everybody to have access to everything, and not just the north making its research available to the south or vice versa. Open access should be a two-way street.’ The proposed structure for scientific @ccess communities would be perfectly suited for this task.”tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/88752012-04-05T09:36:15-04:002012-08-20T18:27:01-04:00abernardComment on the RCUK draft Policy on Open Access“Today I have submitted my comments on the RCUK proposed policy on access to research outputs. Here I am posting these comments publicly... ‘Summary I am very happy to see these proposed changes in the RCUK’s open access policy. Especially so concerning your policy on text- and datamining... I do have strong objections to the acceptance of delayed open access as a valid form of open access. This may be a compromise so that (certain) publishers will accept the policy, however there are enough open access publishers that do not impose an embargo and I don’t see why we (scientists) should give in to the wishes of a specific group of publishers. For me any embargo is obstructing the advancement of science and the timely sharing of knowledge and should thus not be part of open access. I personally would also welcome it when you would refer in your open access definition to the Budapest or to the BBB definition, as we do on the website of the @ccess Initiative where I am an member. Finally, I would like to see more collaboration and cooperation with the EU digital agenda which in my view runs a same course as RCUK. A few more comments and suggestions for some of the proposed changes are listed here below. (2) What do the Research Councils mean by Open Access? ... Search for and re-use the content of published papers both manually and using automated tools (such as those for text and data mining) without putting restrictions on the amount of data , provided that any such reuse is subject to proper attribution. (3) How is a Scholarly Research Paper made Open Access? ... but in practice the Research Councils will accept that access may be restricted to comply with an embargo period imposed by the publisher... embargo period is not acceptable (4) What do journals need to do to be compliant with Research Council policy on Open Access? a) This may require payment of an ‘Article Processing Charge’ to the publisher... I recommend adding a note on what is an acceptable charge because this should not be left open (5) What Research Outputs will be covered by Research Council Policy on Access to Research Outputs and where should they be published? ... No comment (6) When should a paper become Open Access? ... In future, Research Councils will no longer be willing to support publisher embargoes of longer than six or twelve months from the date of publication, depending on the Research Council... Delayed open access not acceptable (see summary above) (7) How is Open Access paid for?... Research Council grant funding may be used to support payment of Article Processing Charges to publishers ... I think that the policy to have open access papers paid from grants is a good one. I would however impose limits to an acceptable APS see comment under (4) ... (8) Acknowledgement of funding sources and access to the underlying research materials ... The underlying research materials do not necessarily have to be made Open Access, however details of relevant access policies must be included ... In my opinion that the underlying research materials can not be seen as separate from the results of research, they should fall under the same rules and should be open access. In fact the underlying data are vital to be able to judge the quality of research. However, I do recognize the need for exceptions for some datasets like patient medical data, but for these cases a list of exceptions would be sufficient... (9) Implementation and compliance ... No comments except for agreement’”tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/34342012-03-28T08:58:04-04:002012-08-20T18:40:37-04:00abernardOpen Access stories wanted“Guest blog by Jenny Molloy – post graduate research student at the University of Oxford who coordinates the Open Data in Science working group at the Open Knowledge Foundation... @ccess is a new initiative within the Open Knowledge Foundation Network which aims to promote true open access for all, under the terms of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. @access plans to develop tools to assist access to disease specific research and enable research communities, healthcare providers and citizens to interact with the scientific literature more easily. We also want to demonstrate to funding agencies, policy makers, publishers and the general public just how important open access to this kind of information is and to ensure that positive steps are taken towards universal access to research. However, there are no studies that we have found on the direct effect of lack of access to the primary medical research literature on patient outcomes (such a study would be very difficult to design) but there is enough anecdotal evidence for us to believe that open access saves lives. To strengthen this assertion we are collecting stories of how open access to the scientific literature directly helped in a diagnosis or treatment - maybe even saved a life or on the other hand, a specific scenario where a lack of access was harmful. An example of the kind of story @access are looking for can be found in this article: Open Access to Scientific Research—Sharing Information, Saving Lives ... We want to provide a public platform for these stories to raise awareness of the problem of access to the primary literature, which we know forms only a small part of the wider problem of access to medical and healthcare information but does play an important role in that knowledge ecosystem. If you can contribute with your story or would like to help guide the development of tools for researchers and medical professional to discover, discuss and share open access research - particularly by suggesting features you would find useful, then please contact me at:jenny.molloy@okfn.org.”tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/23452012-03-20T07:14:07-04:002015-01-17T16:42:41-05:00tomolijhoek<span><div> </div></span><a href="http://access.okfn.org/2012/03/20/scientific-social-networks-are-the-future-of-science/" title="Scientific social networks are the future of science">Scientific social networks are the future of science</a><div>Tom Olijhoek</div><div>
<span>@ccess</span>, (<span>20 Mar 2012</span>)</div><div>science in the 21st century: the role of online scientific networks</div><div>
<span>Posted by <a href="http://www.connotea.org/user/tomolijhoek" title="tomolijhoek">tomolijhoek</a> (who is an author)</span> <span>to <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openscience" title="openscience">openscience</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/openaccess" title="openaccess">openaccess</a> <a href="http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.new" title="oa.new">oa.new</a></span> <span>on <a href="http://www.connotea.org/date/2012-03-20" title="Tue Mar 20 2012">Tue Mar 20 2012</a> at 09:17 UTC</span> | <a href="http://www.connotea.org/article/5af9b218fe80e07277678bcfbb0b5b74">info</a> | <a title="Results powered by Proximic">related</a>
</div>Scientific social networks are the future of science | Open Access Working Group"science in the 21st century: the role of online scientific networks" Posted by tomolijhoek (who is an author) to openscience openaccess oa.new on Tue Mar 20 2012tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/12612012-03-14T19:18:14-04:002012-12-05T12:34:01-05:00abernardBlog | @ccess | Sharing the results of scientific research"Who has never been in the situation that he had a set of data where some of them just didn’t seem to fit. A simple adjusting of the numbers or omitting of strange ones could solve the problem. Or so you would think. I certainly have been in such a situation more than once, and looking back, I am glad that I left the data unchanged. At least in one occasion my “petty” preformed theory proved to be wrong and the ‘strange data’ I had found were corresponding very well with another concept that I hadn’t thought of at the time.
There has been a lot of attention in the media recently for cases of scientific fraud. Pharmaceutical companies are under fire for scientific misconduct (Tamiflu story), and in the Netherlands the proven cases of fraud by Stapel (social psychology), Smeesters (psychology) and Poldermans (medicine/cardiology) have resulted in official investigations into the details of malpractice by these scientists... <span>A report with recommendations for preventing scientific fraud, called '</span><a href="http://www.sociale-psychologie.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Van-Lange-et-al.-Sharpening-scientific-policy.pdf">sharpening policy after Stapel</a>'<span> was published by four Dutch social psychologists: Paul van Lange (Amsterdam), Bram Buunk (Groningen), Naomi Ellemers (Leiden) and Daniel Wigboldus (Nijmegen). One of the report’s main recommendations is to share raw data and have them permanently stored safely and accessible for everyone... </span><span>In this article I propose that for almost all of the instances where scientific misconduct was found, open access to articles AND raw data would have either prevented the fraud altogether, or at the very least would have caused them to be exposed much more rapidly than has been the case in the current situation. Especially in the field of medical research such a change can literally change lives. </span><span>To illustrate this point I want to make a distinction between different forms of ‘Bad Science’. On the author side we can have selective publishing (omitting data that do not fit one’s theory), non-reproducibility, data manipulation and at the far end of the spectrum even data fabrication. On the side of publishers we have publication bias (preferential publishing of positive results or data that confirm an existing theory), fake peer review and reviewers or editors pushing authors to make a clear story by omitting data (effectively resulting in selective publishing!)...</span>"