I like the notion a lot because of the mentioned and well-known pitfalls of the peer-review system, but how do we of the fledgling medical system not find ourselves on the edge of the blade? We all know getting research published makes oneself a more attractive candidate for residencies. How do we appropriately navigate the course in its present state of affairs but still make an impact in this Open Science movement without appearing hypocritical? The peer-reviewed system is flawed, but we are ensconced in decorum and have to play on both teams.
Agreed completely. We're hoping OSK will spark some discussion on the subject, letting great ideas for incentivizing open science rise to the surface. Any ideas thus far?
I like the notion a lot because of the mentioned and well-known pitfalls of the peer-review system, but how do we of the fledgling medical system not find ourselves on the edge of the blade? We all know getting research published makes oneself a more attractive candidate for residencies. How do we appropriately navigate the course in its present state of affairs but still make an impact in this Open Science movement without appearing hypocritical? The peer-reviewed system is flawed, but we are ensconced in decorum and have to play on both teams.
ReplyDeleteAgreed completely. We're hoping OSK will spark some discussion on the subject, letting great ideas for incentivizing open science rise to the surface. Any ideas thus far?
ReplyDelete