08Jun 2018

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CROSSROADS. WHICH WAY TO GO?

  • University of C?rdoba (Spain).
  • Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences (Madrid, Spain).
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Scientific Research (SciRes) can and should be a platform for mankind?s progress by tackling previously unsolved problems and new ones arising each day. However, for SciRes to succeed in this role, it must be properly aimed. This paper presents a systematic analysis of the diverging crossroads SciRes has reached, discusses the right way to go at each in order to pursue quality and examines the implications of taking the wrong way in each case. The most critical crossroads or dilemmas for SciRes at present demand choosing between true or only apparent innovation; publication or usefulness; opacity or transparency; isolation or interdisciplinarity; social responsibility or no social commitment and proper or spurious assessment of research. The paper ends with a summative discussion of the right and wrong ways that can be taken at SciRes crossroads now and in the future.

  1. Bormmann, L., Leydesdorft, L. and Van Bersselaar, P. (2010): Meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. J. Informetr., 4: 211?220.
  2. Burannyi, S. (2017): Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
  3. Chesbrough, H. (2006): Open Innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, New York, 395 pp.
  4. Collins, F.H. and Tabak L.A. (2014): NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505: 612?613.
  5. Einstein, A. (2011). The heart of innovation: 35 awesome quotes from Einstein. http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/archives/2011/09/the_timeless_wi.shtml
  6. Errington, T.M., Lorns, E., Gunn, W., Tan, F.E., Lomax, J. and Nosek, B.A. (2014): An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. eLife, 3: e04333.
  7. Frost, S. (2018): How to simplify a work process. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/simplify-work-process-37323.html
  8. Goodman, S.N., Fanelli, D. and Loannidis, J.P.A. (2016): What does research reproducibility mean? Trans. Med., 8(341): 341ps12.
  9. Gorgolewski KJ and Poldrack RA (2016): A practical guide for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging research. PLoS Biol., 14(7): e1002506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002506.
  10. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D.D. and Goldman, S. (2015): Metaresearch: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PloS Biol., 13: e1002264.
  11. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2016): Why most clinical research is not useful? PLoS Med., 13 (6): e1002049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049.
  12. ISO-26000 (2010): Guidance on social responsibility. International Standardization Organization. ISO/TMBG Technical Management Board ? groups, Geneva, Switzerland, 106 pp. http://www.cnis.gov.cn/wzgg/201405/P020140512224950899020.pdf
  13. Krogsgaard-Larsen, P., Thostrup, P. and Besenbacher, F. (2011): Scientific social responsibility: A call to arms. Chem. Int. Ed., 50: 10738?10740.
  14. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Vol. II, no. 2 in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Neurath, O., Carnap, R. and Morris, C. (eds). 2nd edition, University of Chicago, USA, 222 pp. https://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf
  15. Lund Declaration (2015): Lund 2009 revisited: Next steps in tackling Societal Challenges?. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/news/lund-declaration-2015-lund-revisited
  16. Martin, S., Metha, G. and Hopt, H. (2015): Chemistry embraced by all. Science, 347(6227): 1179.
  17. Mazzucato M. (2018) Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation B-1049. Brussels. pp 1?34. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf
  18. Mearlan L. (2018) What is a blockchain? The most disruptive tech in decades. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3191077/security/what-is-blockchain-the-most-disruptive-tech-in-decades.html
  19. Repko, A.F., Newell, W.H. and Szostak, R. (2012): Case studies of interdisciplinary research. Sage Pu., Inc. Thousand Oaks (USA), 368 pp.
  20. Repko, A.F. and Szostak, R. (2016): Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. 3rd Sage Pu., Inc. Thousand Oaks (USA), 464 pp.
  21. Valc?rcel, M., Simonet, B.M. and C?rdenas, S. (2007): Bridging the gap between analytical R&D products and their use in practice. Analyst, 132: 97?100.
  22. Valc?rcel, M. and Lucena, R. (2012): Social responsibility in Analytical Chemistry. Anal. Chem., 31: 1?7.
  23. Valc?rcel, M., Christian, G. and Lucena, R. (2013): Teaching social responsibility in Analytical Chemistry. Chem. (ACS), 85: 6152?6161.
  24. Valc?rcel, M and Lucena, R. (2014): A quantitative model to assess social responsibility in environmental science and technology. Sci. Tot. Environ. 466-467: 40?46.
  25. Valc?rcel, M. (2017): Usefulness of analytical research. Rethinking analytical R&D&I activities. Anal. Chem., 89(21): 11167?11172.
  26. Valc?rcel, M., L?pez-Lorente, A.I. and L?pez-Jim?nez, M.A. (2017): Foundations of Analytical Chemistry. Springer International Publishing AG. Heidelberg (Germany), 487 pp.

[Miguel Valcarcel and Begona Escribano. (2018); SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CROSSROADS. WHICH WAY TO GO? Int. J. of Adv. Res. 6 (Jun). 323-335] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Miguel Valcárcel
University of Córdoba (Spain).

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/7217      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7217

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 10 | No. of Views: 69