Találati lista | Tudóstér

001-es BibID:	BIBFORM104409
035-os BibID:	(WOS)000599897900006 (Scopus)85096388713
Első szerző:	Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.
Cím:	Curriculum vitae : challenges and potential solutions / Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Judit Dobránszki, Aceil Al-Khatib, Panagiotis Tsigaris
Dátum:	2020
ISSN:	2063-7330
Megjegyzések:	An academic usually has a curriculum vitae (CV) or CV summary (resume) that highlights their professional career paths. CVs contain information which is written by the academic to signal their qualifications and academic achievements to employers, granting agencies, or promotion and tenure committees. Decision makers face numerous problems with CVs as a vehicle that carries important information, including incomplete, outdated, biased, private, as well as falsified and fabricated information. To complicate matters, decision makers themselves could be making biased decisions even when CV information is complete and accurate due to potential discriminatory practices. There is weak consistency or standardization in implementation internationally, and little verification. This paper proposes a set of guidelines for verifiable, accurate, complete, updated, and public (VACUP guidelines) CVs, whether these be private, institutional, or owned by third parties. For the effective implementation of these guidelines, a new market in which a third party certifies the CV as VACUP-compliant, is recommended.
Tárgyszavak:	Társadalomtudományok Média- és kommunikációs tudományok idegen nyelvű folyóiratközlemény hazai lapban folyóiratcikk accountability CV portfolio professional summary public record signaling transparency
Megjelenés:	KOME. - 8 : 2 (2020), p. 109-127. -
További szerzők:	Dobránszki Judit (1967-) (biológus) Al-Khatib, Aceil Tsigaris, Panagiotis
Internet cím:	Szerző által megadott URL DOI Intézményi repozitóriumban (DEA) tárolt változat
Borító:
Saját polcon:

001-es BibID:	BIBFORM104402
035-os BibID:	(WOS)000473801500007 (Scopus)85068832045
Első szerző:	Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.
Cím:	Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism / Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Vedran Katavić, Judit Dobránszki, Aceil Al-Khatib, Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti
Dátum:	2019
ISSN:	2063-7330
Megjegyzések:	A proliferation of publication venues, scholarly journals, use of social media to disseminate knowledge and research results, scientific information, increased international scientific collaboration, a move towards open knowledge and data sharing, recent scandals such as journal editors' coercive citations, fake peer review, peer review rings, data fabrication, research spin, and retraction of articles, several of the latter within the emergence of a post publication peer review movement, are some of the many reasons why publishing ethics are constantly evolving. These challenges have led to the birth of an increasing number of guidelines and recommendations being issued by multiple organizations and committees around the world in light of the recognized need to salvage peer review, and in an attempt to restore eroding trust in science, scientists and their publications. The principal objective of these guidelines and recommendations is supposedly to provide guidance for editors, reviewers and authors to conduct honest and ethical research and publishing practices, including responsible authorship and editorship, conflict of interest management, maintaining the confidentiality of peer review, and other ethical issues that arise in conducting and reporting research. Despite the fact that scholarly publishing is an international enterprise with global impact, current guidelines and recommendations appear to fall very short on imposing any obligations on their parent members, i.e., committee members who issue guidelines and recommend solutions for ethical dilemmas especially when such organizations are dependent on commercial publishers who may be paying members. Obviously, financial incentives indicate that ethical organizations or ethicists are not in a power position compared to editors or publishers. Imbalanced guidelines risk that hidden conflicts of interest, cronyism, or nepotism may corrupt the decision-making process or the ethical hierarchy that has been put into place to safe-guard research and publishing ethics. Therefore, the ethics gate-keepers to the integrity of scholarly publishing should also be carefully scrutinized, and strict ethical guidelines have to be imposed on them as equally as their rules are imposed on global academia to avoid the risk of further corrupting the scientific process as a result of the absence of strong exterior regulation or oversight. This theoretical paper highlights signs of favoritism and cronyism in ethics. It also offers proposals for rules (limitations and consequences) to avoid them in science publishing. Our guidelines should be used by academics in the position of authors or editors who may sense, perceive or detect abuses of power among ethicists.
Tárgyszavak:	Társadalomtudományok Média- és kommunikációs tudományok idegen nyelvű folyóiratközlemény hazai lapban folyóiratcikk organization ethics ethical dilemmas corruption conflict of interest
Megjelenés:	KOME. - 7 : 1 (2019), p. 110-125. -
További szerzők:	Katavić, Vedran Dobránszki Judit (1967-) (biológus) Al-Khatib, Aceil Bornemann-Cimenti, Helmar
Internet cím:	Szerző által megadott URL DOI Intézményi repozitóriumban (DEA) tárolt változat
Borító:
Saját polcon:

001-es BibID:	BIBFORM089756
Első szerző:	Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.
Cím:	The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review / Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Judit Dobránszki
Dátum:	2015
ISSN:	2063-7330
Megjegyzések:	Traditional peer review (TPR) has several limitations and weaknesses. Post-publication peer review is one practical way to repair the ills of TPR and reinforce it. A literature that is marked by errors is unhealthy and should, if given the opportunity, be corrected or further improved. The anonymous voice is one source of critique and differs from the blind peer review in TPR in which the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors and/or vice versa, but the identity is known to the editor. If unregulated, the anonymous voice can pose a threat to established editorial norms in TPR, to one of the most important criteria of science publishing, i.e., transparency, and to worthwhile discussion. Yet, if the anonymous voice is not heard, then a vast and potentially valuable pool of untapped opinions may be lost, opinions that may provide valuable solutions to improving TPR.
Tárgyszavak:	Természettudományok Biológiai tudományok idegen nyelvű folyóiratközlemény hazai lapban folyóiratcikk
Megjelenés:	KOME. - 3 : 2 (2015), p. 90-94. -
További szerzők:	Dobránszki Judit (1967-) (biológus)
Internet cím:	Szerző által megadott URL DOI Intézményi repozitóriumban (DEA) tárolt változat
Borító:
Saját polcon: