Is Scientific Communication Fit for Purpose?
problems is scientific misconduct and fraud, which, it is important to note, is perpetuated by scientists themselves. This category includes scientists who use fraudulent data, inappropriately manipulate images, and otherwise fake experimental results. Publishers have been investing increasingly to block bad contributions at the point of submission through editorial review and more is almost certainly needed, likely a combination of automated and human review. Another form of misconduct is the failure to disclose conflicts of interest, which, notwithstanding efforts by publishers to strengthen disclosure guidelines, have continued to be disclosed “too little too late,”
Beyond individual misconduct, there are also organized and systematic challenges. We are seeing “organized fraud” and “industrialized cheating” to manipulate the scientific record to advance self-interests. These choreographed efforts include citation malpractice, paper mills, peer review rings, and guest editor frauds. And, even if it does not rise to the level of misconduct, we have seen the use of methods and practices that make substantial portions of at least some fields impossible to reproduce and therefore of dubious validity. Whether individual, organized, or systematic, all these are threats to scientific integrity.
10 years in prison for illegal streaming? It’s in the Covid-19 relief bill from r/technology
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/22/tech/illegal-streaming-felony-covid-relief-bill/index.html
The law specifies that it doesn’t apply to people who use illegal streaming services or “individuals who access pirated streams or unwittingly stream unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.”
Rather, it’s focused on “commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services” that make money from illegally streaming copyrighted material.
Last year, the Department of Justice charged two computer programmers from Las Vegas for illegal pirating thousands of hours of television shows from Netflix (NFLX) and Hulu and streaming them on websites called iStreamItAll and Jetflicks. One man admitted to earning more than $1 million from his piracy operations.
The ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2018 (JCDL 2018L:
https://2018.jcdl.org/) will be held in conjunction with UNT Open Access
Symposium 2018 (https://openaccess.unt.edu/symposium/2018) on June 3 – 6, 2018
in Fort Worth, Texas, the rustic and artistic threshold into the American
West. JCDL welcomes interesting submissions ranging across theories, systems,
services, and applications. We invite those managing, operating, developing,
curating, evaluating, or utilizing digital libraries broadly defined, covering
academic or public institutions, including archives, museums, and social
networks. We seek involvement of those in iSchools, as well as working in
computer or information or social sciences and technologies. Multiple tracks
and sessions will ensure tailoring to researchers, practitioners, and diverse
communities including data science/analytics, data curation/stewardship,
information retrieval, human-computer interaction, hypertext (and Web/network
science), multimedia, publishing, preservation, digital humanities, machine
learning/AI, heritage/culture, health/medicine, policy, law, and privacy/
intellectual property.
General Instructions on submissions of full papers, short papers, posters and
demonstrations, doctoral consortium, tutorials, workshops, and panels can be
found at https://2018.jcdl.org/general_instructions. Below are the submission
deadlines:
• Jan. 15, 2018 – Tutorial and workshop proposal submissions
• Jan. 15, 2018 – Full paper and short paper submissions
• Jan. 29, 2018 – Panel, poster and demonstration submissions
• Feb. 1, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for tutorials and workshops
• Mar. 8, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for full papers, short papers,
panels, posters, and demonstrations
• Mar. 25, 2018 – Doctoral Consortium abstract submissions
• Apr. 5, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for Doctoral Consortium
• Apr. 15, 2018 – Final camera-ready deadline for full papers, short papers,
panels, posters, and demonstrations
Please email jcdl2018@googlegroups.com if you have any questions.
HOW OFTEN SHOULD I QUOTE?
http://www.plagiarism.org/citing-sources/cite-sources/
If you think it’s important to quote something, an excellent rule of thumb is that for every line you quote, you should have at least two lines analyzing it.
https://youtu.be/MiL4H09v0gU
How to Cite Other Sources in Your Paper
http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWcitations.html
DO NOT USE DIRECT QUOTES From Published Material: In 99.99% of the cases, the information you want from a research article is an objective result or interpretation. How the author stated this information, i.e., their prose, is of little importance compared to the results or interpretations themselves. Take the information and put it into your own words; avoid paraphrasing since this can potentially lead to plagiarism.
—————————————–
Purdue OWL
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/03/
Writing direct quotations
- Quote no more material than is necessary; if a short phrase from a source will suffice, don’t quote an entire paragraph
- Use quotes that will have the most rhetorical, argumentative impact in your paper; too many direct quotes from sources may weaken your credibility, as though you have nothing to say yourself, and will certainly interfere with your style
—————————————–
parenthetical / in-text citations MLA
http://www.easybib.com/guides/citation-guides/mla-format/how-to-cite-a-parenthetical-citations-mla/
The EU just told data mining startups to take their business elsewhere
Lenard Koschwitz
By enabling the development and creation of big data for non-commercial use only, the European Commission has come up with a half-baked policy. Startups will be discouraged from mining in Europe and it will be impossible for companies to grow out of universities in the EU.
++++++++++++++++++
more on copyright and text and data mining in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=copyrig
hthttps://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=data+mining
Memento Mori: Why the Chegg IPO is Not About Textbooks
http://www.edukwest.com/chegg-ipo/
About 80% of the revenue still comes from renting textbooks, which might seem a bit outdated with everyone talking about tablet deployments and digital textbooks.
Though heavily funded and with more than 225,000 digital textbooks in its library, the startup was sold for pennies on a dollar to Intel Education last week.
With the Internet and tablet devices, publishers themselves can now go directly for the students through digital products. There is no need for physical bookstores or other middlemen to distribute the textbooks. Also professors are now able to sell their own textbooks directly to students.
This IPO is not so much about the current business of renting physical textbooks but about the time after paper-based textbooks. Chegg apparently does not see a future with publishers or professors by their side, and they will probably choose more direct sales channels in order to balance out sinking margins.
