Meaningful learning in weighted voting games: an experiment

In April 2013, all of the major academic publishing houses moved thousands of journal titles to an original hybrid model, under which authors of accepted papers can choose between an expensive open access (OA) track and the traditional track available only to subscribers. This paper argues that authors might now use a publication strategy as a quality signaling device. The imperfect information game between authors and readers presents several types of Perfect Bayesian Equilibria, including a separating equilibrium in which only authors of high-quality papers are driven toward the open access track. The publishing house should choose an open-access publication fee that supports the emergence of the highest return equilibrium. Journal structures will evolve over time according to the journals’ accessibility and quality profiles.     

Unethical Aspects of Open Access

ABSTRACT

In this article, we identify and discuss several ethically problematic aspects of open access scientific publishing. We conclude that, despite some positive effects, paid open access has at least three unethical aspects: it discriminates against researchers, creates an editorial conflict of interest, and diverts funding from the actual conduct of research. To be truly open access, all researchers must be able to access its benefits.     

Open Review of Science Publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

我国科技出版工作存在的问题及解决对策

中国古代造纸术与印刷术的发明 ,为世界科技传播奠定了坚实的基础。改革开放以后 ,我国的科技事业迅猛发展 ,仅用二十几年时间 ,走完了发达国家近 3个世纪的历程 ,科技书刊的传播作用功不可没。但是 ,当前科技出版工作仍存在着优秀科技著作出版难、片面追求经济效益、剽窃现象时有发生、出版队伍不稳定等亟待解决的问题。鉴于此 ,必须加强党对科技出版事业的领导 ,深化科技出版体制改革 ,以迎接加入WTO的挑战。同时 ,建立科技著作出版基金 ,通过完善法律法规体系 ,保证优秀科技著作的出版与传播。     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

Open Access,Open Business,Closed Fairness!

A strong trend to move from print to online publication is largely perceived in scientific and nonscientific fields. A growing number of publishers increasingly opt for online publication as an option or a compulsory alternative. From readers’ perspective, this is a highly appreciated facility, but from the author’s, things are different mainly because of excessive article processing charges (APC) that make the open access system sometimes as a hindrance for many authors but a lucrative enterprise for many shareholders, enticing the most traditional and conservative publishers.     

势科学理论的普适性与科学意义——信息人社会与势科学理论研究之二

＂势＂概念的科学定义揭示了信息的本质属性,即信息量与信息势是等价的。从自然科学到人文社会科学各领域的活动,其本质都可以归结为生产更多的信息量、营造更大的信息势。势科学理论本质上是一个求导过程,其构建了一个系统的逻辑体系,使社会科学与自然科学融通起来,为人文社会科学研究提供了强有力的工具,尤其为信息科学的研究提供了真正的逻辑起点。     

Controlling birth: science, politics, and public policy

Reproductive technologies raise a host of social and legal issues that challenge basic values and create intense controversy. If researchers wish to inform public policies related to reproductive technologies, they must understand how the scientific enterprise is being manipulated and research findings are being misrepresented to justify a particular social agenda and restrict access to contraception and abortion. To counter these distortions, scientists must defend the science advisory process, be involved in dissemination of their research findings beyond simple publication in scientific journals, and actively work to ensure that the findings are not misrepresented to the public .     

Explanation and Education in Social Work

Summary Social work education has to confront the problem of workingwith students in developing an understanding of the range ofexplanations that exist in the social sciences and the differentbases of these explanations. One pedagogic approach is to explorea map of categories of explanation based upon different conceptionsof the nature of social science knowledge itself. Such a map,outlined in the paper, would distinguish between physical scienceparadigms and human science paradigms and identify the differentimplications for social work of the various viewpoints. Theteacher cannot remain neutral with regard to explanation inthe social sciences; the author therefore indicates that hisown account is based on a marxist perspective     

政治生活与政治学基础理论

本来意义上的政治生活是从公民和民生社会中提升出来的高贵的、体现集体精神的公民公共生活。在民生社会衰微甚至被消除的基础上形成的政治生活是扭曲的、反向的社会政治化的结果。民生社会的建设和发展，为积极的社会政治化提供了前提。发展科学的政治学理论是经营、建设体现和谐合作的、健康的政治生活所不可缺少的方面，而要做好这一工作，又必须先在作为其元理论的基础理论的研究上下功夫。政治学基础理论是一个包含多领域的开放性的论域，其任务是要回答政治学理论究竟以何种方式、范式、途径和材料才能科学、合理和有效地建构起来。     

Open review of science publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

哲学社会科学的时代定位

江泽民关于哲学社会科学的重要论述 ,明确了哲学社会科学在新时期的地位和作用。哲学社会科学具有与自然科学同样的科学本质 ,但是它又具有与自然科学不同的人文性质和功能 ,哲学社会科学的重要地位是任何其他学科无法替代的。哲学社会科学的研究应当注重理论的突破和创新。     

关于重建中国政治学理论体系的思考

政治学理论体系的意义不在于系统介绍有关政治现象的各类知识 ,而在于通过探讨、论述政治学研究的目的、对象、方法及基本范畴 ,为研究现实政治提供正确的理论与方法。基于人类政治需要及政治规律的特殊性质 ,政治学的研究目的应是正确认识人民根本利益 ,即具有二重性的社会共同利益 ;政治学的研究对象应是涉及二重性社会共同利益的所有社会生活领域 ;政治学的研究方法 ,既需要自然科学的实证方法 ,也需要哲学的形而上思维 ;同时 ,政治学研究也相应需要新的概念工具 :政治需要、二重性社会共同利益、政治真理、政治规律等     

Introduction

In a time of segmented media markets, enormous potential audiences, and multiple means for audiovisual communication worldwide, it is important to define clearly the purpose of “public communication of science”; projects and initiatives and by what criteria they should be evaluated. Conveyed within a popular format, scientific information contains considerable potential for stimulating change, affecting personal decisions about diet and health, influencing political decisions, or shaping a community's perception of risk. Presence (or absence) of scientific information can empower (or isolate) citizens in a highly technological world, but access alone is insufficient when the amount of information from all sources increases rapidly. Current strategies for allocating resources and setting policy for public communication of science activities follow an outdated and potentially dangerous course because they emphasize volume over all other parameters. This article proposes a re‐examination of science communication policies, with the goal of improving the public's ability to evaluate the quality, validity, legitimacy, and relevance of all scientific information to which public audiences are daily exposed, regardless of its source.     

Toward an understanding of the etiology and treatment of psychological dysfunction among single teenage mothers: Part 1, a review of the literature

Abstract

This paper, the first of a two‐part series to be published in sequential issues of the journal, reviews the recent intervention literature about single teenage mothers who are psychologically dysfunctional. It emphasizes the interplay of social, economic and developmental factors as stressors in the lives of these young women and explores some of the issues that need to be addressed in constructing effective therapeutic programs. The second paper describes an intervention program consisting of long‐term developmentally‐oriented groups for single teenage mothers and their children.     

The market for (Ir)reproducible econometrics

Context: As the volume and complexity of research have increased, the amount of time spent on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review has decreased. The complexity of research has expanded, requiring increasingly specialized knowledge to review it. Dilemma: Under the current system, increasing numbers of research studies requiring expertise in ethics, new technologies or diverse study designs place a substantial burden upon local IRBs and often result in substantial variability among their reviews. This lack of uniformity in the review process creates uneven human subjects’ protection thus undermining the intent of the Common Rule. Objectives: To outline a scenario for expert centralized IRB review via implementation of a national virtual IRB review system overseen by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Conclusions: The complicated ethical issues and science involved in much of current research warrant an expert review panel. Centralized review would enable expert review specific to the research at hand, ensure consistency in human subjects protection, reduce the burden on local IRBs, and may reduce time spent obtaining approval. A centralized virtual system would allow IRB members to remain at their institutions while providing unprecedented expert review through currently available technology, and make information regarding monitoring and adverse event reporting available online in real-time.     

在国族与世界之间:莫斯对文明与文明研究的构想

1913年至1930年间,马塞尔·莫斯（Marcel Mauss）将文明重新界定为介于国族与世界之间的物质、制度、精神实体及它们的道德生境。本文系统考察了莫斯对文明与文明研究构想的由来、学术和现实政治针对性以及对当下社会科学革新的意义。文章指出,这一构想在两次世界大战之间得到集中表达。在此期间,有宗教和科学双重基础的西方理性主义文明论与19世纪末出现的极端国族主义文化论,时而相互对立,时而相互结合,给欧洲乃至整个世界带来了严重的现实问题和思想问题。心灵穿梭在共同体之间,莫斯对流动在疆界之间的文明现象给予了关注,对这些现象及其形式和区域分布之研究做了人文科学的总体展望。莫斯的相关设想在当下仍具有高度的现实针对性。鉴于社会科学（包括美式区域研究）长期受制于国族与世界对分格局,莫斯对社会存在之“中间领域”（“诸文明”）的论述将持续起到“思想解放”的作用。     

走向开源的社会学——定量分析中的复制性研究

摘要：社会科学定量分析亟待建立一个透明和开源的学术机制,让研究数据和模型公开共享,使研究成果可以得到他人的验证和进一步拓展。这个学术机制的核心就是倡导“复制性研究”。本文结合近年来西方社会科学界围绕复制性研究的实践和讨论,提出了复制性研究对于社会科学特别是中国社会学定量分析的重要意义、操作可能性以及可能存在的争议。在此基础上,本文通过两个实证定量分析的例子,为如何进行复制性研究提供了简明的范本。最后,结合中国实际提出了就复制性研究所应达成的共识和建议。本文所论及的复制性研究,对社会科学定量分析其他领域也同样具有参考价值。     

The time frame problem: the law, social construction, and the sciences

Among our official noblest virtues are truth and justice. In the sciences, officially, truth overrides every other virtue. In the law, officially, justice likewise overrides. That is neither to deny that justice should be tempered by mercy, nor that truth should be qualified by wisdom. Any discussion of law and the sciences is potentially high philosophy, the meeting ground of truth and justice. But there are also more practical concerns. How should scientific information and advice be used in the law courts? There is now a rather staid but thoroughly solid assessment of the current state of play in the United States Federal Court systems, Foster and Huber’s(1997) Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts. Far more challenging to the philosopher, the scientist and the student of jurisprudence is Sheila Jasanoff’s(1995) Science at the Bar because she enters current debates as a professed social constructionist, with a distinguished career of investigating science and public policy (Jasanoff and Jasanoff).