Vol. 5 No. 2 (2020): El régimen de Lo temporal en el devenir de las ciencias antropológicas
Dossier

News from the open side of access: Note about the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association Conference (OASPA) 2020

PDF (Español (España))
  • Gerardo Ribero Fernández
Gerardo Ribero Fernández
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v5i2.861

Published 2020-12-26 — Updated on 2020-12-28

How to Cite

Ribero Fernández, G. (2020). News from the open side of access: Note about the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association Conference (OASPA) 2020. Uruguayan Review of Anthropology and Ethnography On Line: ISSN 2393-6886, 5(2), 133–135. https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v5i2.861

Copyright (c) 2020 Gerardo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

From September 22 to 24, 2020, the annual conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) was held virtually. My participation was at the invitation of Scielo Uruguay to RUAE. During the days that the conference lasted, I had the pleasure of participating as a delegate for Uruguay, representing RUAE and the University of the Republic.

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproductibility crisis?. Nature, 533, 26 de mayo de 2016, pp. 452- 454.
  2. Brochard, L. & Brun-Buisson, C. (2007. ) Salami publication: a frequent practice affecting readers’ confidence. Intensive Care Med 33, 212–213 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0539-9
  3. Jackson, D., Walter, G., Daly, J., & Cleary, M. (2014). Editorial. Multiple outputs from single studies : acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 23(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/jocn.12439
  4. Norman, G. (2014) Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Adv in Health Sci Educ 19, 1–5 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8
  5. Buranyi, S. (2017). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?. The Guardian. 27 de junio de 2017. Recuperado de https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
  6. Pashler, H., &Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors.’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
  7. Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 13(4), pp. 411-417. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691617751884