"As Open Access Explodes, How to Tell the Good from the Bad and the Ugly?"

Although we've read a few articles about Open Access Journals and faulty Open Access Publishers, it still bothers me that people would set up these publishing companies in the first place. I realize that a big factor and "advantage" for them is money. As the author of this article states,

"...because in contrast to subscription journals, an OA title earns more revenue with every paper its editors accept."

I am glad that researchers are getting together to decide how to fight against these companies and the criteria that should be used in doing so. 

Using journal transparency as a criterion caused me to consider the journal review we just did. It's interesting that looking up a journal's purpose statement and writer guidelines can help to expose the quality of the journal. I wonder what other criteria can be used to determine quality.

"Publish or Perish-Peer Review and the Corruption of Science"

The world of academia is full of pressure from all sides. Pressure to be the best in your field, pressure to constantly move forward and discover innovations, pressure to publish. The author of this article displays these pressures in a very negative light, and while I wholeheartedly agree with his points, I would like to comment that pressure isn't always a bad thing. Again I reiterate what I previously stated--I agree with the author. It does seem natural that research funders want their researchers to have a certain number of papers written in scholarly journals--why shouldn't they be constantly exploring topics in their fields or even new fields?  

That being said, the author of this article does very well with presenting the problem and then offering solutions. He is very thorough in his analysis of his own solutions as well. The issue with these research funders is that while some pressure can help researchers to grow, too much can cause the problems evidenced in this article.  Researchers start to publish articles wherever they can, even if the data isn't fully developed. I think that my questions are these: "What would it take for research funders to stop requiring so much from their researchers?" and "Why aren't the funders reacting to the problems they are causing?"

"Battling Bad Science"

Initial reactions to this Ted Talk: Why would companies want to withhold information from scientists? Why not do research the right way the first time?" 

After thinking about this video, I am starting to consider its applications for my own research this summer, and on future research I will do. I feel as though all of us "first-years" are constantly asking, "Why is APA so particular? Why do we have to use APA for one class and Irvine's for another?" It's becoming clear that research needs to be done the right way. Half of the journey of research is HOW you reach a conclusion. Citing correct information and researching the best ways possible enables us to present clear and verified information--why would we want it any other way? Many times during this program I have heard professors compare researching and using research to the research of doctors. They need to know all of the facts to reach a conclusion because the conclusion can have such a significant effect on patients. Our research and its conclusions can also have effects and it is up to us to decide what kind of research we want to conduct. 

Two quotes that really struck me at the end of this Ted Talk were:

"I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant."

"We cannot make decisions in the absence of all the information."