The Guardian has a new post on the need for attribution in open science. From the post:
Basically, scientists are only as good as their ideas, and even though ideas may be ephemeral, the credit for those ideas is not. Credit gets jobs, keeps jobs, gets funding, attracts students and bestows respect and international standing in the community.
Advertisement
I’m not sure the author of the Guardian’s piece understands the point of Michael Nielsen’s talk, as the author’s main argument is that open science
won’t work under the current academic evaluation system. This is correct, but that is why the open science community is focused on developing alternative metrics of evaluation. For more on both see this post from Cameron Neylon: http://tiny.cc/51at0.
updated url for Cameron’s blog post: http://tiny.cc/6mc48.