---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration in now open for
GAMING METRICS: INNOVATION & SURVEILLANCE IN ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
UC Davis, February 4-5, 2016
Organized by the Innovating Communication in Scholarship Project (ICIS) with support from the Center for Science and Innovation Studies (CSIS). Co-organizers: Mario Biagioli and Alexandra Lippman
GAMING METRICS: INNOVATING & SURVEILLING ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT. UC Davis, February 4-5, 2016. This conference explores a recent evolution of scholarly misconduct ... |
The conference is open to the public. Please register here<http://goo.gl/forms/QdMyTg1xZt>. Although attendance will be on first-come first-serve basis, we will reserve seats for out-of-town participants.
DESCRIPTION:
Misconduct has traditionally been tied to the pressures of "publish or perish" and, more recently, to the new opportunities offered by electronic publishing. The conference takes the next step to asks whether the modalities of misconduct are now evolving to adapt themselves to modern metrics-based regimes of academic evaluation. Have we moved from "publish or perish" to "impact or perish"? If so, are metrics of evaluation now creating new incentives for misconduct? And can we still reliably draw a clear separation between gaming the metrics game and engaging in misconduct? Traditional discourses and policies of misconduct were rooted in oppositions between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, honest mistake and fabrication, but new metrics-based misconduct seems to be defined by the extent of the gaming involved. In sum, are new metrics-based forms of misconduct asking us to rethink and redefine misconduct?
Topics include:
How different communities and professions construe the line between acceptable and unacceptable gaming.
When do university rankings cross over into institutional misconduct?
“Collaborative” misconduct, such as citation rings among journals to maximize their impact factors.
Gaming that involves the construction or adoption of metrics
Does Goodhart’s law, that the introduction of any metric creates a market for gaming it, apply in academic contexts?
Does the rise of "watchdog" organizations indicate something about the specific nature of modern academic misconduct?
The appearance of "fake" journals whose titles (and the look and feel of their websites) resemble those of well-known and respectable journals
Have humor and absurdity become a mode of critique and unmasking?
Speakers include:
Sally Engle Merry (NYU, Anthropology)
Alex Csiszar (Harvard University, History of Science)
Paul Wouters (Leiden University, Science and Technology Studies)
Karen Levy (NYU, Media, Culture, and Communication)
Barbara Kehm (University of Glasgow, School of Education)
Lior Pachter (UC Berkeley, Mathematics)
Daniele Fanelli (Stanford, METRICS)
Finn Brunton (NYU, Media, Culture, and Communication)
Sarah de Rijcke (Leiden University, Science and Technology Studies)
Jeffrey Beall (University of Colorado, Denver, Information Science)
Dan Morgan (University of California Press, Collabra Project)
Johan Bollen (Indiana University, Informatics and Computing)
Carl T. Bergstrom (University of Washington, Biology)
Jennifer Lin (Crossref)
Michael Power (London School of Economics, Accounting)
James Griesemer (UC Davis, Philosophy)
Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch & NYU)
John Bohannon (Science Magazine)
Elizabeth Wager (Sideview)
Darren Taichman (Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine)
Debora Weber-Wulff (University of Applied Sciences Berlin, HTW, Media and Computing)
Brandon Stell (The PubPeer Foundation & CNRS)
Emmanuel Didier and Catherine Guaspare (EPiDaPo, UCLA)
Marie-Andree Jacob (Keele University, Law)
Alessandro Delfanti (University of Toronto, Communication, Culture, Information and Technology)
Sergio Sismondo (Queen’s University, Philosophy)
Cyril Labbé (Joseph Fourier University - Grenoble I)
Burkhard Morgenstern (Universität Göttingen, Bioinformatics)
Paul Brookes (University of Rochester, Medicine)