https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02318-8
"Australia’s major research funder has ruled more than 20 fellowship
applications ineligible because they mentioned preprints and other
non-peer-reviewed materials, sparking an outcry from scientists who say the
move is a blow to open science and will stymie careers.
At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the use of preprints to the
fore, researchers say the stance by the Australian Research Council (ARC) —
which limits applicants’ ability to refer to the latest research — is out of
step with modern publishing practices and at odds with overseas funding
agencies that allow or encourage the use of preprints.
In the past week, researchers have taken to Twitter in outrage, calling the
blanket ruling “short sighted”, “plain ludicrous”, “cruel”, “astonishing”,
“outdated” and “gut-wrenching”.
Nick Enfield, a linguistic anthropologist at the University of Sydney, who is
currently funded by the ARC, argues that the decision is unconscionable and
unethical. “The leading research-funding body of the country is potentially
throwing away valuable research on a ridiculous technicality,” he says."
Via Dave Farber.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
