Read on Twitter
I’m passionate about stamping out parachute science and making science more ethical. Just read the review below where reviewer takes a stand against this. It’s worth a read. (
1/5)
https://editor.copernicus.org/index.php/cp-2020-130-RC2.pdf?_mdl=msover_md&_jrl=12&_lcm=oc108lcm109w&_acm=get_comm_file&_ms=89977&c=198405&salt=76964860632041324
1/5)https://editor.copernicus.org/index.php/cp-2020-130-RC2.pdf?_mdl=msover_md&_jrl=12&_lcm=oc108lcm109w&_acm=get_comm_file&_ms=89977&c=198405&salt=76964860632041324
The reviewer implies fundamental problems with the research, that I suspect a local scientist would have prevented.
Geoscientists are curious about new landforms & earth surface processes globally. We travel far and wide, but geoscience is rife with parachute science. 2/5
Geoscientists are curious about new landforms & earth surface processes globally. We travel far and wide, but geoscience is rife with parachute science. 2/5
So what’s the problem with parachute science:
1. It may be wrong without critical background knowledge of the region, process, previous work etc
2. It is not capacity building
3. It may not meet a critical knowledge gap
4. It is literally accosting knowledge for own gain. 3/5
1. It may be wrong without critical background knowledge of the region, process, previous work etc
2. It is not capacity building
3. It may not meet a critical knowledge gap
4. It is literally accosting knowledge for own gain. 3/5
We clearly need some checks and balances. I’m frustrated publishers make $$$ off our service whilst doing little to promote equitable science.
To reduce parachute science, this could be achieved by providing clear guidance on scientific permiting & authorship requirements. 4/5
To reduce parachute science, this could be achieved by providing clear guidance on scientific permiting & authorship requirements. 4/5
As reviewers, we can already start to implement some of these practices but bringing issue to attention of authors and editors.
This reviewer has provided an example to follow. 5/5
This reviewer has provided an example to follow. 5/5
I’ve just been reminded that @CopernicusEU have an open review for this article. Comments on the work and authorship can still be provided online
