I think you raised a good point about the price hike of many open access journals. What’s the point of open access if it is not affordable? However, I would think that Open Select is a good option to have since it at least gives you the opportunity to make your own choice. This is suitable for people who would like to publish in an open access journal but can’t afford the exorbitant fees open access journals charge.
Here’s another open-access agricultural journal somewhat related to agricultural education, Journal of Agricultural Extension (https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jae/index). It turned up in my research this week.
I don’t know how I feel about Open Select because it dosen’t mean the information in the journal is accessible to everyone. Only the articles published by people who can pay the higher open access publication fees. Maybe this creates some bias in what research is made available to everyone. I guess you could argue that the same thing happens when choosing between a regular and an all open-source journal. Cost of publication is a whole other discussion that maybe we’ll get into in class. Do you feel like the open select option is a good one?
Very true Sam. Undermining the integrity of research should never be an option.
Hey Dami, Interesting blog title.
You bring up a good point towards the end of your blog. You ask yourself this, should you publish manipulated data just to please your sponsors, or should you maintain personal and professional integrity in these situations ? For some people, what a dilemma it is I must say, but if you choose the green side early on in your research career, you’ve built yourself a strong foundation for ethical behavior that will sustain the test of time.
If I was in that Dilemma, I’d risk the fund, justify why my lab results didn’t come out as predicted, and just be true to myself. If you cheat yourself now, you’ll never acquire any genuine self fulfillment in the future.
I share the same sentiment. I think punishments should be more severe than what we currently have. I’m glad my post helped you see the other ‘less talked about’ side of this issue. Cheers!
I read this case study as well, and it seems to follow a similar pattern of most of the misconduct cases presented on the ORI website. Someone fabricated results in an effort to continue forward. I like how you touched on why someone would do this. I think having some reasoning explains why someone would attempt to jeopardize their career. I recently wrote my blog in regards to why punishment isn’t as severe as maybe I believe it should be. I mentioned how, as researchers, our goal is to learn and grow the field in which we are studying, and that anyone who fabricates data is ultimately embodying the complete opposite of that. Many of the punishments that I read were a combination of probation, limited-to-no advisory leadership role availability, and required research proposal plan review by ORI. In my eyes, I felt that this just doesn’t justify someone who actively altered results in order to benefit themselves. However, after reading your post, I have been enlightened that maybe researchers do this from pressure of outside sources, and while they still have a moral obligation to make ethical decisions, one could be, for a lack of better terms, a “rock in a hard place” and not know what to do. While I don’t justify the falsification of data, it begs the question of how much blame is provided to the fabricator, versus blame to the coercer (e.g., advisor, institution, etc.).