Open Access
| Issue |
Nat. Sci. Soc.
Volume 24, Number 2, April-June 2016
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Page(s) | 154 - 159 | |
| Section | Vie de la recherche – Research news | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2016015 | |
| Published online | 28 July 2016 | |
- Bargum K., 2006. Write and wrong, Nature, 441, 7096, 1024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bensaude-Vincent B., 2010. Splendeur et décadence de la vulgarisation scientifique, Questions de communication, 17, 19-32, https://questionsdecommunication.revues.org/368. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Byrnes J.E.K., Ranganathan J., Walker B.L.E., Faulkes Z., 2014. To crowdfund research, scientists must build an audience for their work, PLoS ONE, 9, 12, e110329, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110329. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cadogan D., 2014. Funding for research? Look to the crowd: crowdfunding resources for academia, College & Research Libraries News, 75, 5, 268-271. [Google Scholar]
- Callaway E., 2013. Glowing plants spark debate. Critics irked over planned release of engineered organism, Nature, 498, 15-16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- CCDE (Comité consultatif de déontologie et d’éthique) de l’IRD, 2013. Avis du CCDE : crowdfunding ou financement participatif de la recherche, http://www.ird.fr/content/download/69206/530044/version/2/file/Avis+Crowfunding.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng D., 2013. Science + crowdfunding: match or no match?, MIT Center for Civic Media Blog, http://civic.mit.edu/blog/hidenise/do-science-and-crowdfunding-really-belong-together. [Google Scholar]
- Comets (Comité d’éthique du CNRS), 1996. Rapport du Comets sur la diffusion des savoirs, http://www.cnrs.fr/comets/IMG/pdf/29-diffusion-savoirs-2.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Conrad C.C., Hilchey K.G., 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities, Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 176, 1, 273-291. [Google Scholar]
- Ecklund E.H., James S.A., Lincoln A.E., 2012. How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach, PLoS ONE, 7, 5, e36240, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036240. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fitzpatrick K., 2010. Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority, Social Epistemology, 24, 3, 161-179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Gates B., 2012. Social innovation fast pitch: American idol for social impact, The Gates Notes, http://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Social-Innovation-Fast-Pitch-American-Idol-for-Non-Profits. [Google Scholar]
- Holbrook J.B., 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: the case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion, Technology in Society, 27, 4, 437-451. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- IRD, 2013. Lettre de saisine du CCDE sur le crowdfunding. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan K., 2013. Crowd-funding: cash on demand, Nature, 497, 147-149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Khoo T., 2014. Are you being “grantist”?, The Research Whisperer, http://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/are-you-being-grantist/. [Google Scholar]
- Larouche J.-M., Piron F. (Eds), 2010. Responsabilité sociale et éthique de la recherche, Éthique publique, 12, 1, https://ethiquepublique.revues.org/84. [Google Scholar]
- Rasmussen J., Langer V., Alrøe H.F., 2006. Bias in peer review of organic farming grant applications, Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 2, 181-188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Richman J., 2013. uBiome data policy, uBiome: blog, http://ubiome.com/blogs/news/10579545-ubiome-data-policy. [Google Scholar]
- Souder L., 2011. The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature, Learned Publishing, 24, 1, 55-72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Stemwedel J., 2013. Ethical and practical issues for uBiome to keep working on, Doing Good Science, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2013/07/24/ethical-and-practical-issues-for-ubiome-to-keep-working-on/. [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.