Difference between revisions of "Links on problems in academia"

(Funding)
(Peer review)
Line 78: Line 78:
 
===Peer review===
 
===Peer review===
 
* [http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html Quality and value: How can we research peer review?]
 
* [http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html Quality and value: How can we research peer review?]
 +
* [http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/04/01/plos1-public-library-of-sloppiness/ Public Library of Sloppiness?]
 +
* [http://blogs.wiley.com/publishingnews/2009/09/21/bentham-affair/ Bentham Affair -sloppy OA]
  
 
===Plagiarism===
 
===Plagiarism===

Revision as of 14:43, 1 April 2012

This is just a backup of a bookmark folder, will structure it later.

Academic career

Generic

Ph.D.

Postdocs

Coming back

  • Reentering Academia - A Success Story I knew that I could be a reasonable scientist given the chance. I eventually managed to convince people here in Oxford that I could be taken back on as a postdoc.


Finding a job after academia

Academia as a workplace

Funding

Fraud and retraction

Peer review

Plagiarism


Philosophical defenses

Inefficiencies

Italy

Open science

Image