Lost science in the third world what has changed since 1995
Download
1 / 24

Lost Science in the Third World What has changed since 1995? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Lost Science in the Third World What has changed since 1995?. W. Wayt Gibbs, Senior Writer Scientific American +1.415.397.0226 [email protected] LDC Research is Invisible. OECD+ Authors are found on 72% of items in 1994 SCI. LDC Authors could be found on 5.6%.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Lost Science in the Third World What has changed since 1995?' - senona


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Lost science in the third world what has changed since 1995

Lost Science in the Third WorldWhat has changed since 1995?

W. Wayt Gibbs, Senior Writer

Scientific American

+1.415.397.0226

[email protected]

WHO


Ldc research is invisible
LDC Research is Invisible

  • OECD+ Authors are found on 72% of items in 1994 SCI.

  • LDC Authors could be found on 5.6%.

  • LDC representation in 1994 in:

    ScienceNature The Lancet Cell

    0.3% 0.7% 2.7% 0.0%

WHO





The matthew effect
The Matthew Effect

“Unto every one that hath shall be given… but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

—Matthew ch.25

Robert K. Merton, Science, 159(3810):56, 1968

WHO


“There is no science there.” — Jerome Kassirer, NEJM

“Many [LDC journals] do not deserve… to be published.” — Manuel Krauskopf, Univ. of Chile

Poor English

Page charges (more in US than Europe)

LDC libraries get few journals

“First-Worldism”— Wielend Gevers; “inherent prejudice” — C.N.R. Rao

Bias against applied research

Why?

WHO


Vicious circles

Local journals have low impact, low prestige, no cash incentives

LDC researchers send their best work to SCI journals

Vicious Circles

  • LDC journals

  • do not meet criteria for indexing

  • Submissions are

  • too low to support rigorous peer review and regular publication

WHO


Initiatives
Initiatives incentives

  • ExtraMED, ExtraSCI

  • Incentives for publishing, especially in SCI-listed journals

  • Journal donation programs of AAAS, INASP

  • LDC culling of weak local journals

  • Africa One & direct satellite Internet access

WHO


What would we cover now
What Would We Cover Now? incentives

  • SCI (3,430 journals in 1995) replaced by the Web of Science/SCI-E (>5,500 journals)

  • Access to citation data in many LDC institutions seems to be falling further behind.

  • Increased size of SCI-E has increased number of LDC-authored items in database. 1999 SCI-E has double or triple the number of the 1994 SCI for many LDCs.

WHO



Ldc journals inch upward
LDC Journals Inch Upward incentives

WHO



A new look at matthew
A New Look at Matthew incentives

  • Manfred Bonitz, [email protected]

  • Matthew effect for journals. Most skewed:

    Nature: 33,901 Matthew citations

    Physical Review B: 15,380

    Science: 14,271 Lancet: 7,427

    NEJM: 6,502 J. Biol. Chem.: 9,559

  • Parable of the Talents  “Olympic Games”

WHO


Reviewing peer review
Reviewing Peer Review incentives

  • Special issue of JAMA, 15 July 1998

  • Retrospective study of all papers submitted to Gastroenterology in 1995 & 1996 detected significant bias (p=0.001; OR=1.49)

WHO


Trials of double blind review

118 MS randomized to masked or open at incentivesAnn. Emerg. Med., Ann. Int. Med., JAMA, Ob. & Gyn., Opthalmology

68% success against guessing (less for well-known authors)

No difference in review quality, acc. to authors and editors

467 MS randomized to masked, unmasked, control at BMJ

58% success against guessing.

No significant difference detected in review quality by editors or authors.

No significant difference in acceptance rates.

Trials of Double-Blind Review

WHO


Past initiatives
Past Initiatives incentives

  • ExtraMED: Back in publication after >1 year hiatus. 307 journals, 20,850 articles. Still struggling financially. Has 50 subscribers, ~half in LDC; none of the major US research libraries subscribe.

  • ExtraSCI:

WHO


Journal donations drop off
Journal Donations Drop Off incentives

  • AAAS Program dead for several years

  • M.I.T. exchange program halted

  • India Institute of Science receives 1,500 journals now, down from 2,000 in 1995.

WHO


The internet broadening the gap
The Internet: Broadening the Gap... incentives

  • Monthly cost of Internet access  monthly salary of African researcher.

  • Total national bandwidth of majority of African countries is  64kbps.

  • AAAS study: 2 of 4 African universities could not download PDF files.

WHO


Or bridging it
…or Bridging It? incentives

  • AfricaOne: $1.6bn fiber optic ring to be completed in 2002. Two dozen landing points will share ~80Gbps.

  • Brazil: SciELO (http://www.scielo.br/) hosts 42 e-journals. Link to Internet2 will increase bandwidth 77-fold in 4 cities. FAPESP has invested in Web of Science access for Brazilian universities and research labs.

  • Asia-Pacific Advanced Network extended to link with Malaysia biodiversity and bioinformatics network.

WHO





Geometric growth in both rich & poor nations suggests that LDCs are ~5 years behind developed nations in use of Internet

WHO


ad