Why I transcribe PhD defenses. A public defense for publi-shing doctoral dissertations & defences + an overview of open access in PhD theses in the Benelux

Last modified: 
24/2/2016

Article under construction

Inspired by experiential learning, I transcribe public doctoral defenses, while at the same time hoping to make a small contribution to science from a communicative pedagogical perspective. Making defenses truly public, anno 21st century, can facilitate learning at the forefront of science. Thus studying a discipline can be integrated into the actual discipline, analogue to the learning of artisans from more experienced craftsmen, instead of doubling (or tripling, when administrative exams are added) the work, which might be seen as an additional learning tool besides more pedagogically & technologically advanced study material. If you would like to have a similar treatment to your lecture or dialogs, please feel free to contact me. My service comes at no cost, for open education and free education, pro bono.

A true researcher is a hero who increases our moral leverage by insight. I would like to profoundly thank the speakers for sharing their knowledge. It deserves appraisal to be brave enough to facilitate communication of criticism, which resides at the heart of science. It is my wish that initiatives like these can contribute to a purer and perhaps slower science. Today, there is often little time and energy for discussion and extensive analysis of articles. Let us thus cherish the energy put into these public defenses as much as possible. I think that science benefits from transparent education and open research. Data, protocols, research design and accounts of funding should be made public.

Please publish doctoral theses freely on-line

Below, I will address some of the problems which academia is facing; which hopefully can be circumvented by opening up research and education. However, first of all, I would like to make an appeal for the free on-line publication of all PhD theses. I greatly despise embargoes, patents & costly publications and education in science, which I think of as intrinsically increasing economic inequality in mankind: Today, every PhD thesis is constructed digitally. However, many Belgian dissertations do not end up on-line; or do not end up on-line freely. I'll start of with a statistically insignificant anecdote: discussing open access in research with a tenure track professor in chemistry at the University of Antwerp, called Vera Meynen University of Antwerp | ResearchGate | LinkedIn (Antwerp holds the largest chemical cluster of Europe, according to the Port of Antwerp1; thus its academic research might be expected to be perhaps extra competitive &/or protectionistic in the current neoliberal economy). This professor argued that closed access & embargoes are justified in order to not make important research findings easily available to institutions & countries which are less advanced on a research level. Not criticizing this professor's findings or research qualities, I find this protectionistic & over-competitive attitude extremely appalling and completely devoid of the morals which should reside at the heart of science.

Overview of open access in PhD theses in the Benelux

Regarding open access, I'll give a small comparison between the countries forming the Benelux: Belgium & The Netherlands & Luxembourg. In the table below, I am updating data drawn from my own experiments. The percentages in the last column indicate the amount of published PhD theses content, freely & openly available; in regard to the total records of PhD theses on-line, for each universitary repository:

Warning

If you want to re-use (some of) these data, please verify all the information in all columns for each institution, to understand what information has been collected and how exact these data are expected to be. It may be possible that e.g. some PhD records exist but may not have been recorded in the repository browsed, or that many PhD's were defended but have not been recorded. Please feel free to contact me / the respective institutions once more to verify this further, and/or to ask them for new information.

To interpret these data with scientific depth, please proceed with similar caution.
UniversityNr° of on-line PhD theses records with publicationsrecordsNr° of on-line PhD theses free access publicationsrecords with publications

Nr° of on-line PhD theses free access publicationsrecords

(Column 2) × (column 3).

The Netherlands

Delft University of Technology Wikipedia | Official site

99.945212[...] % @ 1/7/2015

Records with publications: 72972 Query "Type: Dissertation", via TU Delft Institutional Repository.

Records: 73013 Queries Collection: "TU Delft Repository" & Document type: "doctoral thesis", via TU Delft Discover. The theses which are contained in TU Delft Discover, but not in TU Delft Institutional Repository, are possibly paper theses without any on-line publication (N=3 after considering the footnotes above). This, I assumed after communication with the repository, which gave the following information (after I asked for an explanation of the subtle difference): In TU Delft Discover you can also find paper versions of theses. Not all theses are digital available. TU Delft Repository contains only e-versions. However, I would find it very strange if only 3 paper theses were included in TU Delft Discover. Therefor, I am not quite sure of the origin of the subtle differences in the 2 queries in the 2 repositories. It was also communicated that: If you take the option TU Delft Repository at the collection section, you have all the digital PhD theses defended at the TU Delft &/or its related or sub-institutions.

99.534055[...] % @ 1/7/2015

Only 34 theses were uploaded without being open access (11 of 163 theses in 20154 & 12 of 362 in 2014 & 6 of 352 in 2013 & 4 of 299 in 2012 & 1 of 318 theses in 2011). I checked this by exporting the search results as .xls files and browsing for empty columns in the file column.

It was also communicated that: In TU Delft Repository all records are Open Access but sometimes with an embargo.
99.479523[...] % @ 1/7/2015
Eindhoven University of Technology Wikipedia | Official site

100 % @ 18/7/2015

The universitary library communicated the following to me: Our theses are delivered in total to the library, shortly before the promotion of the candidate. The library provides access on the Internet. They are released on the internet at the promotion date. Some dissertations are still under embargo: the electronic version is on hold for the duration of this embargo. Electronic versions are added to the repository when allowed. Older dissertations may not be available on the internet or repository yet. This is the right link for the repository: http://repository.tu.... I browsed the Repository TU/e Queries: "Proefschrift" (which is Dutch for "Doctoral dissertation"), and "Material Type: Dissertation", which yielded 4551 results. Since this repository was not as handy for my research question, in comparison with the national repository NARCIS - National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System, I chose to collect the data using the latter, which yielded 4408 results for a similar query Queries: "Type: Doctoral thesis" & "Institution: Eindhoven University of Technology", via "Publications". In this way, using NARCIS allowed a simple read-out of the amount of theses under open & closed access, while staying relatively close to the 4451 results of the Repository TU/e. The theses which were listed under closed access are here considered as also containing a publication. This assumption was based on the information communicated by the library, cited above.

99.251361[...] % @ 18/7/2015

Using the same queries in NARCIS as in column 2, it was revealed that 33 files were under closed access, while 4375 files were under open access. Cf. column 2 for information by the library which makes me assume that all 4375 files are 100% completely open access uploaded theses.

Below, the theses under closed access can be found: Warning: this list is automatically updated by NARCIS. If you are interested in the 33 files under closed access, at the time of my data collection, please feel free to contact me.
99.251361[...] % @ 18/7/2015
Wageningen University Wikipedia | Official site

99.983484[...] % @ 2/6/2015

Records with publications: 6054 "Dissertations", via Wageningen Yield verified by browsing for the string "Full text not available" in the source codes of the .html files of all search results. The reference of the single record without publication can be found reported below: 5.

Records: 6055 "Dissertations", resulted in a supremum of 6055 results, via Wageningen Yield.

98.331681[...] % @ 2/6/2015

11 PhD thesis records were published under limited access verified by browsing for the string "Full text limited access" in the source codes of the .html files of all search results. The full list of the 11 thesis publications which were consultable via institutional access only, can be found reported below: 6.

90 PhD thesis records were under embargo verified by browsing for the string "embargo" in the rendered .html files of all search results. The full list of the 90 thesis publications which were under embargo, can be found reported below:

Records under embargo:

These 90 already excluded 8 records which were technically under embargo, but had their graduation date in the future & had the expiring date of their embargo on their graduation date, and where thus not counted as under embargo.

Presented in the order, as retrievable in the sorted order by the repository:
The remaining dissertations were present in full text.7
98.315441[...] % @ 2/6/2015
Erasmus University Rotterdam Wikipedia | Official site

99.489699[...] % @ 30/6/2015

Records with publication: 5264 Query Type: Dissertation, via RePub. Records: 5264 Query Type: Dissertation, via RePub + ±27 records (cf. below) = 5291. I have calculated the percentage of this column by estimating the amount of records vs. the total amount of PhD theses (also those which did not have a publicly visible record). The calculation thus slightly differs from the description of the column heading in this table. I was given information about PhD theses without a publicly visible record, via in a spreadsheet. To situate the context of the spreadsheet, I will show the description of it in a reply by the repository, after I asked them some questions about open access: 281 out of the total of medical dissertations concern dissertations with a complete or partial embargo. This should give you an idea of "the problem". Medical dissertations make up about two thirds of all EUR dissertations and the problem of partial embargo's is a problem that arises in the context of medical dissertations. Attached you will find a spreadsheet my colleagues use to track complete and/or partial embargo's of medical dissertations. In this file, I discovered that only 263 of the 281 medical dissertations contained in the spreadsheet, were listed with a record in RePub. Thus, 18 records were not listed in RePub. I then asked the repository whether or not non-medical PhD theses were also refrained from the publicly visible records. I got the following reply: Yes, that might be the case, but not there will not be many; a couple perhaps. Thus, I estimated an additional 9 non-medical thesis records to be not publicly listed (following the information "two thirds", specified above).

96.675531[...] % @ 30/6/2015

The repository showed the following information:
  • Open acces: yes = 5138.
  • Open access: no = 126.
After I contacted the repository (cf. column 2), I was given the information that 281 medical dissertations contained a full or partial embargo. I thus loosely estimate (cf. column 2) 350 theses in total to contain a full or partial embargo. Estimating that, on average, the contents of these theses are available 50% open access, this yields "175 theses" not open access.
96.182196[...] % @ 30/6/2015
Tilburg University Wikipedia | Official site

91.915789[...] % @ 7/6/2015

Records with publications: 2183 Queries "Type: Doctoral Thesis" & "Organisational unit: Tilburg University", via The Tilburg University Research Portal manually verified twice. A full list of the records without publication can be found reported below8. The following table represents the complete list of on-line PhD theses records without on-line PhD theses publications:

Records without publications:

Records: 2375 Queries "Type :Doctoral Thesis" & "Organisational unit: Tilburg University", via The Tilburg University Research Portal.

100 % @ 7/6/2015

I have inquired Tilburg University for verification on 8/6/2015. On 9/6/2015, the repository replied: For doctoral theses, PhD students are obliged, to publish their thesis (publisher’s version) open access the day after the defense ceremony through our Research Portal. Although if a (commercial) company does not agree to have the thesis publically available as e.g. there is confidential or business critical information in the thesis, the thesis will never be available online. When the thesis is published commercially, an embargo period may be taken into consideration. This embargo date is captured in our research information system and after this date the full-text will be released online. On 15/6/2015, the repository indeed confirmed that any given thesis is either completely accessible or not at all: Indeed there is no third option: a thesis is either accessible or not (at a certain moment).

The average embargo period for theses is between 1,5 and 2 years. Your remark that information on the embargo date is not visible for a user, is valid. It might be a nice improvement request for the Research Portal, thank you.
91.915789[...] % @ 7/6/2015
Radboud University Wikipedia | Official site

82.379746[...] % @ 28/6/2015

Records with publications: 4881 Document type: "Dissertation", via Radboud Repository + verification by browsing for strings in the .html source codes of all the search results.. The string browsed for was "No_fulltext_25x25.png" alt="Icon">"". This method was accurate, since including the records from all other remaining categories, added up to 5925 (cf. below).

Records: 5925 Document type: "Dissertation", via Radboud Repository + verification by browsing for strings in the .html source codes of all the search results..

96.414669[...] % @ 28/6/2015

The records which contained a file, consisted of 2 categories only, of which the corresponding records were identified by browsing for the following strings in the .html source codes of all the search results:
  • "Open_Access_25x16.png" title="fulltext available"">,
  • "Closed_Access_25x16.png" title="fulltext unavailable due to embargo"">.
This yielded the following results:
  • Open Access: 4706,
  • Closed Access: 175.
79.426160[...] % @ 28/6/2015
VU University Amsterdam Wikipedia | Official site

84.301676[...] % @ 24/5/2015

Records with publications: 3018 Section "Dissertations (VU)", via e-Library VU University Amsterdam manually verified. A full list of the records without publications, can be found reported below:

Records without publications:

Records: 3580 Section "Dissertations (VU)", via e-Library VU University Amsterdam + exclusion of 42 records for PhD defenses in the future, since the repository does not specify the length of embargoes.

90.165320[...] % @ 24/5/2015

Methods, as well as the complete data sample used for this experiment, can be found reported below: 9.
76.010876[...] % @ 24/5/2015
University of Amsterdam Wikipedia | Official site

72.475042[...] % @ 17/5/2015

95.258935[...] % @ 17/5/2015

Methods, as well as the complete data sample used for this experiment, can be found reported below: 10.
69.038953[...] % @ 17/5/2015

Belgium

University of Liège Wikipedia | Official site

80.853474[...] % @ 19/6/2015

The repository (my contact was the friendly Dominique Chalono Twitter | LinkedIn | University of LIège) informed me that there were currently 3 repositories holding PhD theses of their university: They have informed me that their repository of the future will be Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi), but that the merging process is still taking place. The multiplicity of these repositories created overlapping thesis records between BICTEL/e - ULg & Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi). The third repository (BICTEL/e - FUSAGx. Serveur institutionnel des thèses de doctorat) contains no overlap with the other repositories, and was related to the old faculty of agronomy of Gembloux (now: Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech WikipediaFrench | Official site @ University of Liège | University of Liège French), which is now attached to their university.
Via Dominique, I was provided with the following information, on 19/6/2015 (it was said that these data were retreived during the week of 15/6-19/6/2015 & that the data of the 2 "Bictel"'s were taken on 16-17/6):
  • BICTEL/e - FUSAGx. Serveur institutionnel des thèses de doctorat

    I was informed that: It is obligatory to always deposit a file with the reference in Bictel, but sometimes it can happen that only a table of contents or a summary is added.11
    • Records: 84.
    • Records with publications: 84.

    I verified these numbers, given by the repository, that same day12.
  • BICTEL/e - ULg. Serveur institutionnel des thèses de doctorat

    I was informed that: The 2 Bictels are being integrated in to ORBi. Nevertheless, since the systems have been functioning during the same time, we estimate that there are about 40% of double records between Bictel ULg & ORBi. We are not yet finished with the treatment of the doubles, so the numbers are not 100% exact.13
    • Records with publications: 991.
    • Records: 991.

    I verified these numbers, given by the repository, that same day14.
Regarding Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi), I was provided with the following information (which I didn't accept, since I retrieved different numbers myself as an end-user: Considering an estimated overlap of 40% between BICTEL/e - ULg & Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi) (I thus only counted (60 + 402 )% of their added results), this yields the following numbers for the 3 repositories combined, in total:
  • Records with publications: 1712.8.
  • Records: 2118.4.

64.608438[...] % @ 19/6/2015

Via Dominique (cf. column 2), I was provided with the following information, on 19/6/2015 (it was said that these data were retreived during the week of 15/6-19/6/2015 & that the data of the 2 "Bictel"'s were taken on 16-17/6):

  • BICTEL/e - FUSAGx. Serveur institutionnel des thèses de doctorat

    I was given the following information:
    • 64 references with files under open access (all the files are open access).
    • 19 references under restricted access (all the files are under restricted access).
    • 4 references under mixed access = open and restricted (there are multiple files associated to a reference, with at least 1 file under open access).16
    However, these numbers do not add up to 84 (cf. column 2). Therefore, I relied on the following information, which I could consult on-line (which only very slightly differs, therefor I assume the communication above to be a typing error):
    • Public access: 61.
    • Restricted access: 19.
    • Mixed access: 4.12
    Of the 4 records described as under "mixed access", I manually confirmed that, in fact:
    • 2 records were completely under restricted access,
    • 1 records held all its files under open access, but I counted this record as 0% open access, since these files were not chapters, but minor secondary files,
    • 1 file was indeed under mixed access, but I was unable to specify the amount of the thesis under open access, so I settled for 50%.

    In total, this yields 61.5 records under open access. I will un-cautiously (and very modestly) round this off to 60 records since I was warned (cf. column 2) that it is possible to have only partial content of the thesis contained in this repository.
  • BICTEL/e - ULg. Serveur institutionnel des thèses de doctorat

    I was given the following information:
    • 522 references under open access.
    • 292 references under restricted access.
    • 48 references under mixed access = open and restricted.17
    However, these numbers do not add up to 991 (cf. column 2). Therefore, I relied on the following information, which I could consult on-line:
    • Public access: 588.
    • Restricted access: 352.
    • Mixed access: 50.14
    I manually analyzed the 50 theses under mixed access, and calculated the open access content (included chapters only), which resulted in a mean open access content of 32.53333...%. Please contact me if you are interested in the data and exact analysis performed to yield this number. In total, this yields 604.26666... records under open access.
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi)

    I was given the following information: Total: 1645
    • With a file (open or restricted): 1076
    • With a file under open access: 71018 However, I was unable to reproduce these results. Therefor, instead, I performed the data collection & analysis myself, which the numbers described below. Of the 1045 records (cf. column 2), there were 704 records open access & 341 records under restricted access. These data were acquired by searching for the strings “/pdf.png” & “/txt.png” & “/pdf_lock.png” & “/txt_lock.png” in the all the .html source codes of the search results.
Considering an estimated overlap of 40% between BICTEL/e - ULg & Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBi) (I thus only counted (60 + 402 )% of their added results), this yields the following numbers for the 3 repositories combined, in total: 1106.613333... open access records.
52.238167[...] % @ 19/6/2015
(Warning: estimate includes large uncertainties)

Académie Louvain Wikipedia | Wikipedia French

Académie Louvain encompasses 3 universitary institutions:

99.997980[...] % @ 23/6/2015

The 3 universitary institutions constituting Académie Louvain (cf. column 1) hold a common repository, called Dépôt Institutionnel de l’Académie Louvain (DIAL).

After I had contact with the library of the University of Louvain, I was given the following information on PhD theses, by "The DIAL team", on 4/6/2015: Below statistics about Phd Thesis for "UCL" Wikipedia | Official site:
  • Total: 5152
  • Free access: 1333
  • Restricted access: 2963
  • Forbidden access: 512
  • Under embargo: 193
  • Mixed access: 138

For "UNamur" University Wikipedia | Official site:
  • Total: 313
  • Free access: 119
  • Restricted access: 126
  • Forbidden access: 9
  • Under embargo: 30
  • Mixed access: 28

For "USL-B" University Wikipedia | Official site:
  • Total: 18
  • Open access: 6
  • Restricted access: 6
  • Forbidden access: 4
  • Mixed access: 219
However, I was unable to reproduce these results that same day, and yielded severely different numbers, for some institutions & categories. Even more suspiciously (one might say), is that I did not receive any further answers &/or communication about my inquiries as to the links & methods which produced these results. The communication went silent. Therefore, I re-performed this analysis myself on 23/6/2015. This yielded the following results (cf. also column 3):

44.398821[...] % @ 23/6/2015

  • University of Louvain

    • Open access: 1346 (1353 after correction, cf. column 2)
    • Restricted access: 1110
    • Forbidden access: 334
    • Under embargo: 195
    • Mixed access: 112 (34.878571[...] after calculation, cf. below)
    • Partial access: 26 (14.999... after calculation, cf. below)
  • University of Namur

    • Open access: 118 (119 after correction, cf. column 2)
    • Restricted access: 126
    • Forbidden access: 9
    • Under embargo: 30
    • Mixed access: 24 (4.886666... after calculation, cf. below)
    • Partial access: 4 (1.99 after calculation, cf. below)
  • University of Saint-Louis Bruxelles

    • Open access access: 6
    • Restricted access: 6
    • Forbidden access: 4
    • Mixed access: 2 (1 after correction, cf. column 2; and subsequently 0.666... after calculation, cf. below)
The data above were acquired by browsing for the strings "Accès restreint" & "Accès embargo" & "Accès libre" & "Accès partiel" & "Accès mixte" & "Accès interdit". On 4/6/2015 (cf. column 2), I was informed the following (please note that I have replaced the French strings below by their English counterparts): Concerning Phd thesis, the listed access categories are complete. - "Open access" representing completely free access for everybody in the world - "Restricted access" representing access free only for members of our University - "Under embargo" representing access restricted only for members of our University until a specified date. When date is over, access become "free" - "Forbidden access" representing no access for anybody (we have the fulltext, but it's hidden and we keep it for preservation) - "Mixed access" representing some Dissertations with multiple fulltext (TOC, Chapter1, Chapter2, Conclusion ...). For each fulltext, user can specify an access restriction. If for one dissertation it exists multiple files with multiple access mode, the global access statement is "Mixed access". I asked the repository whether or not the theses needed to be uploaded fully to the repository or not. I received no response and thus assumed that they were uploaded in full (which certainly is an over-estimation). For "Mixed access", as well as "Partial access", I calculated percentage of open access publications; even though doing this accurate was impossible since the uploaded files did not specify which part in the table of contents they covered, at many instances & it was unclear whether there were parts of the thesis simply not uploaded. The calculations were mainly aimed to be based on main chapters only, although they were (for this repository) briefly estimated and have to be seen as a rough estimate only.

This yielded, for "Mixed access":
  • University of Louvain: 34.878571[...] open access publications, with an average of ±31% (N=112).
  • University of Namur: 4.886666... open access publications, with an average of ±20% (N=25).
  • University of Saint-Louis Bruxelles: 0.666... open access publications (N=1).
And, for "Partial access":
  • University of Louvain: 14999... open access publications, with an average of ±58% (N=26).
  • University of Namur: 1.99 open access publications, with an average of ±50% (N=4).
For the University of Namur, I counted 1 publication publication under open access, which didn’t have any notice regarding access in its meta-record (cf. column 2).

In total, this yields 1535.755238[...] open access publications.
44.309152[...] % @ 23/6/2015
University of Ghent Wikipedia | Official site

75.015563[...] % @ 31/5/2015

44.379844[...] % @ 31/5/2015

Methods, as well as the complete data sample used for this experiment, can be found reported below: 20.
33.291790[...] % @ 31/5/2015
University of Antwerp Wikipedia | Official site

3.891402[...] % @ 31/5/2015

Records with publications: 43 Query "Publication Type: Doctoral thesis" resulted in a supremum of 43 results for the query "Full text (Open Access): Yes", via Institutional Repository University of Antwerp (IRUA).

Records: 1105 Query "Publication Type: Doctoral thesis" resulted in a supremum of 1105 results, via Institutional Repository University of Antwerp (IRUA).

100% @ 31/5/2015

Regarding this column, I have contacted the universitary library for verification on 31/5/2015. I received a kind and extensive reply on 2/6/2015, which made me understand that the 43 theses (cf. column 2) were indeed published completely on-line, and fully under open access. The repository indeed confirmed that any given thesis is either completely accessible or not at all.
3.891402[...] % @ 31/5/2015

Luxembourg

University of Luxembourg Wikipedia | Official site

38.709677[...] % @ 18/6/2015

Records with publications: 188 Queries "Document type: Doctoral thesis" & "With full text only" & "UL bibliography only", via Open Repository and Bibliography Luxembourg (ORBi lu). Carefully analyzing the 458 (later: 435) records below though, yielded 189 records with publications. Of these 189 records, 21 were excluded (9+12, cf. column 3), resulting in 168 records.

Theses without on-line PhD thesis publications held the following notice: There is no file associated with this reference. A full list of the records without publications, can be found reported below:

Records without publications:

Records: 458 Queries "Document type: Doctoral thesis" & "UL bibliography only", via Open Repository and Bibliography Luxembourg (ORBi lu), whereof 24 are excluded (cf. above), leaving 434.

83.333... % @ 18/6/2015

Please note that the library informed me that: As our authors are solely responsible for deposit in ORBilu, I’m unable to tell you if a given file that is available in Open Access contains the full PhD thesis or not. We do not check the contents of the OA file. 152 PhD theses were available open access on-line, whereof 12 theses were excluded (cf. below), resulting in 140 theses.
A full list of the excluded theses, can be found reported below:

Excluded open access records:

37 theses were available under limited access only, whereof 9 theses were excluded (cf. below), resulting in 28 theses.
Theses with limited access publications held the following notice: The desired document is not currently available on open access. Nevertheless you can request a copy from the author(s) through the form below. If your request is accepted you will receive a link by email giving you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum. If you are a member of UL staff, simply login to download the file. It is not necessary to request a copy. A full list of the records with limited access publications, can be found reported below:

Records with limited access publications:

These data were acquired by searching for the strings "/pdf.png" & "/txt.png" & "/pdf_lock.png" & "/txt_lock.png" in the all the .html source codes of the search results.
32.258064[...] % @ 18/6/2015

Excluded Benelux universities

I was unable to collect representative results for the universities below. Nevertheless, you may find some useful information on them here:

  • Belgium:

    • University of Leuven Wikipedia | Official site

      After inquiring the university and its repositories, Hannelore Vanhaverbeke University of Leuven | ResearchGate | LinkedIn | Academia commmunicated the following: Searching in LIMO for PhD dissertations and their accessibility doesn't appear to be that simple. I have directly browsed, as repository manager, our repository (Lirias). Since 2006, when uploading the thesis manuscript became obligatory, until 2014, there have been archived 4168 PhD's in Lirias.
      • whereof 1325 publicly accessible,
      • and whereof 74 under embargo - they will become public as well after the embargo has expired.

      So 31.78% publicly available, or after expiration of the embargo 33.57%.21
      Please note that the percentage noted "after expiration of the embargo" is quite misleading, since it is to be expected that by this time, new embargoes will be added and newer theses will be archived, ...

    • Vrije Universiteit Brussel Wikipedia | Official site

      After struggling to retrieve the desired information with the VUBIS catalogue, and after communication with the institutional library, I was communicated the following: Even though the catalogue of the library can display all dissertations, there is no easy quick way to filter the theses from the PhD theses, even though this is displayed in the description of the work. In itself, there is no real "repository". The library thus also doesn't have an electronic version, let alone an abstract of the works. Perhaps that the faculties do own those, the library in any event not.22
    • Université libre de Bruxelles Wikipedia | Official site

    • University of Hasselt Wikipedia | Official site

    • University of Mons Wikipedia | Official site
  • The Netherlands:
    • University of Maastricht Wikipedia | Official site

      On 18/7/2015, I inquired the university for help to extract the desired information. In that time, the amount of PhD theses registered in the database "UM Publications", seemed to be 3824 Type: "PhD thesis", queried via UM Publications. However, when I checked on 1/8/2015, this amount was reduced to 3820. The university (cf. its reply below) provided me with yet another number.

      On 30/7/2015, I received the following reply (I have extracted some relevant information here): I have tried to acquire the numbers, but this doesn't seems to be so easy. What I know thus far is that there are currently 3508 dissertations in our repository. These are not all publicly accessible, but that information cannot be extracted from the system. I am also unable to reply you the total number of dissertations which were defended at the Maastricht University. We, ourselves, don't have this information. I will inquire this further.23 On 5/8/2015, I received the following information: Complementary, I communicate you that there have been 3889 dissertations defended at the University Maastricht (formerly Rijksuniversiteit Limburg) in total.24
    • University of Groningen Wikipedia | Official site

    • University of Leiden Wikipedia | Official site

    • University of Twente Wikipedia | Official site

    • University of Utrecht Wikipedia | Official site

    • Open University of the Netherlands Wikipedia | Official site
If you are interested in what I think of the policy at the University of Antwerp ; or would like to take a look at their policy via my personal story, you can do so below:

My personal story at the University of Antwerp, regarding Open Access in research

The University of Antwerp is clearly the worst university (cf. those universities investigated above) in publishing PhD theses on-line & publishing PhD theses on-line under open access. Between 20/1/2015 (Dirk Van Gestel's PhD defense) & 11/6/2015, there were 65 public PhD defenses at the University of Antwerp, of which I attended 46 (70.7[...]%). It seems as if, not once, the University had the courage to decline the granting of a PhD, even when the room, at occasions, gets silent for ±2 minutes because of the huge mistakes made in the PhD, pointed out by jury members. It seems clear to me that there is a wide variety in the quality of PhD defenses. I have discovered that some jury members (if not to speak of ghostwriting via the promotor) communicate their questions with the doctoral student before the beginning of the defense (information obtained via a Belgian professor), creating dishonest examination with heterogeneous chances amongst doctoral students. Further more, some promotors use non-verbal communication to guide the student's response during the defense, creating further discrepancies in equal examination. I even experienced doctoral students who admitted to give a certain answer, because their funding company was present in the room, while admitting that they would give another answer after the doctoral defense! You might think it thus would be the task of the university to facility communication of the quality controls which are PhD defenses. I would agree, yet the University of Antwerp thinks otherwise. Please remember that universities are funded with (your) public taxes, while reading their policy revealed below. In this regard, I would like to quote Pierre Dillenbourg ResearchGate | Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne | LinkedIn, in his paper of which I provide further excerpts in my article on Belgian education:

Do tax payers understand academia?

Europe has the unique chance of publicly funded universities. However, this public funding is constantly threatened by the weaknesses of the national economies. How many taxpayers perceive campuses as nice environments for privilege people rather than as an economical priority? Universities should make their contribution to society more visible. I am not talking here about the creation of start-ups or about collaborations with Flemish companies, even through these could be critical aspects of the MOOC strategy, but about training citizens to societal issues and providing lifelong learning to all Flemish citizens.25
After having mailed (and argued for opening up research & education) extensively with certain persons in charge &/or related to research at the University of Antwerp since the beginning of 2015, when I started to transcribe PhD defenses (this started via speakers who cc'd my appeal for their approval and some of their assistance to these persons & this mainly resulted in answering questions as to what I was doing); I have contacted the Antwerp Doctoral School Official site on 7/4/2015 to ask for formal support by the University of Antwerp regarding these transcriptions, since it was difficult to get a minimum of cooperation for unclear recordings with the speakers. Unsure of who to contact, I inquired Patricia Popelier ResearchGate | University of Antwerp | AcademiaNet | Montesquieu Institute (MI)Dutch, the Chair of the Board of the Antwerp Doctoral School (who also appeared to me as a hard worker, from attended defenses), about possibilities for any such formalized cooperation. She quickly replied to me that same day, stating that my question would be discussed during the next meeting of the Antwerp Doctoral School, in May. On 2/6/2015, I received happy news from the library at the University of Antwerp, while conducting my research (cf. the table above), which stated the following: Very recently the Antwerp Doctoral School decided that every PhD student should deposit a .pdf file of the thesis in to the repository. Whether or not this can be made open access. The factual passing of the month of May makes me suggest that "the next meeting of the Antwerp Doctoral School, in May" (referred to above), had already taken place. The notion of "very recently" in the reply of the universitary library, makes me suggest that (in a wild, but coherent hypothesis of abduction) it might be possible that this decision was taking during this meeting referred to, and that (the) decisions of this meeting were already disseminated across relevant stakeholders (such as the universitary library). Since either my hypothesis was incorrect, or I was not regarded as a relevant stakeholder; I have re-contacted Patricia Popelier, and have cc'd Nel Grillaert University of Antwerp | LinkedIn | Academia | ResearchGate, the coordinator of the Antwerp Doctoral School; to repeat my question of 7/4/2015 for formal support in regard to the public transcription of PhD defenses & to inform them about my research findings, which suggests (in my humble opinion) that any step towards opening up research in Antwerp is more than necessary. On 3/6/2015, Nel Grillaert asked me to deliver additional information about the transcriptions. Information which I delivered that same day. On 9/6/2015, Patrick Ingelaere University of Antwerp | LinkedIn (who is a coordinator of the Legal Compliance Center a the university) answered me, to inform me that the University of Antwerp wishes not to cooperate with the transcription of PhD defenses. He also said the following: The University of Antwerp does not wish to cooperate on this and will suggest the doctorandi & other actors, through the Antwerp Doctoral School, to not cooperate on this likewise.26 Even when I don't understand what they exactly mean with "on this" (since their mail is rather vague and mentions multiple activities before this line); in my view, this policy by (possibly) the worst university in the Benelux regarding open access, is appalling. They even say the following: If you would nevertheless continue this activity, the universitary board will not refrain from undertaking further steps. In the mean time, the universitary board asks you to delete the already placed transcriptions straight away.27 Again, it is completely unclear to me what they exactly mean by "this activity". The latter part just flabbergasts me. They do not mention any legal grounds for this command. It is as if they want to claim some kind of copyright for what the speakers at a defense say? As I said, I am not sure what they will advise doctorandi, but it might well be that they try to obstruct freedom of the press, abusing their power & reputation to influence the doctoral students. Their mail didn't mention any possible reasons for their policy towards the absolute blocking of any activity related to transcriptions &/or recordings (nor did they mention any reason why they do not wish to cooperate). That same day, I asked them for clarifications of many of their vague statements. Currently, I am awaiting reply. My best guess is that they are a ashamed (which I think they should be) to reply in a clear manner. Further more, I think their policy isn't even the best one for propaganda purposes, since I do not think that they would prefer me to communicate only excerpts &/or reviews of a PhD defense containing the harshest criticism, which would be much simpler obviously.
Politics, as well as academic cooperatives in The Netherlands seem to have a more open-hearted, less chauvinistic policy regarding open access. On the Dutch National website providing information for academics about the advantages of Open Access to publicly financed research, it can be read:
  • Dissertation obligated

For dissertations, Open Access is a fact. 9 out of the 14 universities have a institutional policy which obliges dissertations to be included and made publicly available in the institutional repository. Embargoes of 6 months may be applicable. At these 9 universities, more than 75% of the dissertations are made available publicly. The fact that dissertations are now available via the internet, has considerably improved the amount of times that a dissertation is viewed. Yearly, 3,000 promotions are at stake.28
I would like to take the liberty to state passages from a 15/7/2014 letter on the subject of "Open access to publications" by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) Download, addressed to all members of the Dutch academic community. These passages talk about commitments expressed in a 21/1/2014 parliamentary document by Sander Dekker Wikipedia | Government of the Netherlands | Twitter | Parlement & Politiek Dutch, the Dutch State Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. I greatly admire Sander Dekker for these statements & couldn't agree more:
  • Recent developments

    The Open Access debate recently received a strong impetus as a result of a letter to the Parliament written by State Secretary Sander Dekker of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In that letter, he takes the position that, in principle, publicly funded research should be freely available. This position is based on the conviction that Open Access is beneficial to science but also to society at large and the economy. In an increasingly digital world, Open Access publications can be found quicker and more easily, are cited more often and have a larger reach, not only within but also beyond the scientific community. All professions (from school teachers to GPs and starters of spin-offs) should be able to benefit from the latest scientific insights. Least of all Open Access publishing provides advantages to developing countries where few can afford expensive subscriptions to scientific journals.

  • State Secretary Sander Dekker aims to have Open Access to 60% of Dutch scientific publications in 5 years time and 100% in 10 years time (2024).

    He makes a well-considered choice for the golden route.

    The VSNU letter, on behalf of the executive boards of all Dutch universities also clarifies what is meant by "the golden route":
    • Green and gold

    The international debate about Open Access distinguishes two main routes: the green and the golden route. The green route is based on self-archiving. In this model, authors make their work publicly accessible by depositing their manuscripts in an institutional repository. All Dutch universities offer this possibility. Occasionally, publishers require embargo periods to be observed. By means of this route, all researchers working in the Netherlands can contribute to making their publications freely available online. We call on you to (continue to) use this possibility.
    The golden route is more complex. However, many believe that in the end it is a more sustainable route to Open Access. Publications are directly made available online via the platforms of publishers. This move therefore requires a change in the business models of publishers: from a subscription based model to a model where the author (or more accurately the author’s employer or research funder) pays a fee upon acceptance of an article. An increasing number of publishers are working according to this golden business model. Notable examples include PlosOne Wikipedia | Official site and BioMed Central Wikipedia | Official site.
Closely related &/or overlapping, general reasons for digital education can be found in my critical article on (Belgian) universitary education. Did I mention that the European Union also is an advocate of free online publication of research, funded with public money? Transcribing doctoral defenses, in my view, can be an open contribution to "all societal actors", as well as to "inter-institutional" & "international collaboration", which is a EU-guideline: It is now widely recognised that making research results more accessible to all societal actors contributes to better and more efficient science, and to innovation in the public and private sectors. In 2012, via a Recommendation, the European Commission encouraged all EU Member States to put publicly-funded research results in the public sphere in order to make strengthen science and the knowledge-based economy. Other challenges need to be addressed such as issues raised by intellectual property rights (including copyright), data analytics (also known as Text and Data Mining), alternative metrics, and research e-infrastructure, to name a few, but also inter-institutional, inter-disciplinary and international collaboration among all actors in research and innovation.

Audiovisual publication & digital transcription (in Belgium)

A simple search on YouTube, using the query "PhD defense", resulting in ±46,000 results29, shows that at least some people have understood the value of taking doctoral defenses to an international, open, truly public, free and accessible level. Regrettable though, Belgium is lagging in this asset of science as well. I'll update a list with the PhD defenses defended in Belgium, which I could find on-line. This list was last updated mid-2015. Please contact me if you would like to report any newly uploaded recorded defenses:

PhD defenses retrievable audio-visually, defended in Belgium (N=3)

Unfortunately, all these theses lack interactive transcriptions (closed captioning). The PhD defense at the Free University of Brussels clearly is the most technological & pedagogically advanced.

@ University of Antwerp (N=1)

@ Free University of Brussels (N=1)

  • 5/7/2012 | Shahid Mahmood Satti's PhD defense | Scalable Single and Multiple Description Scalar Quantization

    This recording lacks the greatest amount of critical scientific value, since none of the criticism by the jury is retrievable on-line. Nevertheless, the Free University of Brussels shows here, how a nice digital presentation can look like.

@ University of Leuven (N=1)

  • 8/5/2014 | Phil Davis's PhD defense | Open and Closed. A Wesleyan Reflection on Christian Narratives of Love

    This recording does contain questions by the jury, but the recording stops during these questionings.
    ►
As I have mentioned, I think such recordings would greatly benefit from interactive transcription, to enhance the pedagogical accessibility range. Pioneers in digital education also offer these transcriptions with their videos, translated to multiple world (& sometimes other) languages. If you are still unfamiliar with these: arguably the 3 most well-known platforms are edX & Coursera & Udacity. If you would like to find out more platforms &/or MOOC search engines: I have listed many of them in my critical article which discusses (the lack of) digital education in Belgium, amongst other deficiencies. When I finish my investigation on open access of PhD theses in the Benelux, I will start transcribing PhD videos interactively. The only "Belgian" recording which meets my inclusion criteria, is the single recorded PhD thesis at the University of Antwerp, mentioned above, since it contains the full defense, including the jury's criticism. Quite ironically, since their policy has been very childish, unable to give any reasons for its ultra-chauvinistic protectionism . Since they fail to formulate any reasons for trying to fob me off via the truly vague words of a legal advisor, I will try to guess their reasons myself. I can think of 2 such reasons for blocking the publishing of scientific criticism, uttered in PhD defenses:
  • they (possibly naively) think that criticism & quality control would damage their (propaganda-like) reputation,
  • they want to keep even more scientific results & protocols private, in a regrettably and immorally competitive closed attitude.
I hope there will be more Belgian PhD theses recordings on-line soon.

Problems which academia is facing

Publication pressure

Regarding Flanders specifically, cf. a brave Dutch article by "Jonge Academie", a group which introduces itself on the topic as follows: As interuniversitary group of 40 young top scientists, Jonge Academie sees it as one of her core tasks to reflect about the future of the university, the researchers and the scientific research in Flanders. Publication pressure is but one of the elements to be discussed. Also the emphasis on the number of doctorates, the specificity of the disciplines and qualitative judgement are essential ingredients for the debate about the future university and her ideals.30 They clearly propose to evaluate scientific output & processes in a qualitative manner. In my view, this is exactly what a PhD defense does: it asks questions about the process of the science, and evaluates the strengths & weaknesses of the latter. Jonge Academie further questions the advantages of the remarkable increase in doctorates in Flanders: Jonge Academie will participate in a constructive debate for a sustainable policy of universities; and this, in particular, from the perspective of young scientists in the run for their independent academic career. In this debate, Jonge Academie brings ingredients like the remarkable increase in the number of doctorates in Flanders. "We have to be open to also study the evolution of the quality of these doctorates and to ask critical questions about the opportunities that the present doctorate creates for the career path of the individual doctoral student," said Jonge Academie.31 Tina Kyndt Google Scholar | ResearchGate | University of Ghent | Department Molecular Biotechnology @ University of Ghent | LinkedIn, representative of scientific policy of Jonge Academie, adds the following regret: At present, the blind quantitative evaluation has begun to play such a role that excellent people continually have to go into direct competition, with a continuously beleaguered research time as a result.32 The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) Wikipedia | Official site is also mentioned. Noël B. Salazar Wikipedia | Academia | Personal site @ University of Pennsylvania | Twitter | ResearchGate | LinkedIn | Google Scholar | University of Leuven | University of Bergamo, representative of internationalization of Jonge Academie, comments on The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment: The dissatisfaction with the current research evaluation policy thus extends far beyond our national borders, and that while at many foreign universities a much lower number of publications per year is asked than in Flanders.33 To conclude with the words of Jorgen D'hondt Researchgate | LinkedIn | Wikipedia Dutch | Free University of Brussels Dutch | Flanders Today, president of Jonge Academie, who again stresses the importance of both qualitative evaluation & review of the process (I'm getting repetitive, but: this is exactly what a PhD defence & jury is supposed to result in): And through all the differences, these researchers are worried about the same fact: that the number of publications has started to coincide with the label quality. That they do not always recognize the value of their research in that figure. And that there are often few other instruments to be called in: no prior personal interview; no related, nuanced and written evaluation; no empathy for the individuality of the discipline or interdisciplinary research field. "I have understood the métier of review committees and such," said Jorgen D' Hondt, chairman of Jonge Academie. "I very least doubt the utility of peer review, and I advocate the existence of evaluation committees. But I am not convinced that an increased output always leads to higher quality 'top'-publications; nor that with publications alone, the quality of the research is properly measured."34 So, Jonge Academie, why not cherish PhD defences through audio(-visual) digitalisation &/or via digital (interactive) transcription? Why let this quality control go to waste in small physical spaces, devoid of the international attention these reviews deserve?

Misconduct & fraud

A large and much-cited 2009 meta-analysis is "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data" by Daniele Fanelli Professional site | ResearchGate | Academia | LinkedIn | University of Edinburgh | Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS): My 2009 meta-analysis on surveys about misconduct is one of the most popular papers published in the entire Public Library of Science, currently counting over 140,000 views.35 His meta-analysis suggests that 33.7% of inquired scientists admitted questionable research practices on behalf of themselves and 1.97% of scientists admitted to have committed serious fraudulent activities. When inquiring about the behavior of colleagues, these numbers rose even more dramatically to 72% & 14.12% respectively. Its abstract concludes: Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.36 One can find this study discussed by its author audio-visually right below , as recorded on a 2013 evening, entitled:
  • "Gray Matter: Fraud, the gray zone"

    On 14/5/2013, an evening entitled "Scientific fraud. The gray zone" was organized in Ghent, Belgium at the venue Handelsbeurs by:
    Its speakers were:

    Daniele Fanelli's "Bias and misconduct: How? Why? What can be done?"

    ►
    • 0:20 | Mention of the World Conference on Research Integrity.
    • 1:03 | Some examples of possible or confirmed cases of scientific misconduct include famous scientists such as:
    • 1:41 | In 1830, Charles Babbage wrote "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes".
    • 2:11 | Francis Bacon's Theory of the Idols is discussed.
    • 4:25 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his own 2009 meta-analysis "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data":
      • 4:59 | Forrest plot of admission rates of data fabrication, falsification and alteration in self reports (Figure 2).

        Figure & description: Area of squares represents sample size, horizontal lines are 95% confidence interval, diamond and vertical dotted line show the pooled weighted estimate. Analysis description: When explicitly asked if they ever fabricated or falsified research data, or if they altered or modified results to improve the outcome (see Table S2, questions 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17, 26), between 0.3% and 4.9% of scientists replied affirmatively (N = 7, crude unweighted mean: 2.59%, 95%CI = 1.06-4.13). Meta-analysis yielded a pooled weighted estimate of 1.97% (95%CI: 0.86-4.45), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran's Q = 61.7777, df=6, P<0.0001) (Figure 2). If only questions explicitly using the words “fabrication” or “falsification” were included (Table S2, questions 3, 6, 10, 26), the pooled weighted estimate was 1.06% (N=4, 95%CI: 0.31-3.51).

        Included studies (sorted vertically ~ Figure 2):

        • http://journals.lww...., Michael W. Kalichman & Paul J. Friedman, A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67, 1992, p. 769-775.
        • http://www.researchg..., Susan Eastwood e.a., Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey, Science and Engineering Ethics 2, 1996, p. 89-114.
        • http://www.researchg..., John A. List e.a., Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behaviour, Economic Inquiry 39, 2001, p. 162-170.
        • http://jme.bmj.com/c..., David Geggie, A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud, Journal of Medical Ethics 27, 2001, p. 344-346.
        • http://pages.stolaf...., Brian C. Martinson & Melissa S. Anderson & Raymond de Vries, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435, 2005, p. 737-738.
        • https://www.mja.com...., David A Henry e.a., Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: a survey of the Australian experience, Medical Journal of Australia 182, 2005 p. 557-560.
        • http://www.contempor... / http://www.researchg..., William Gardner & Charles W. Lidz & Kathryn C. Hartwig, Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, 2005, p. 244-251.
      • 6:25 | Forrest plot of admission rates of data fabrication, falsification and alteration in non-self reports (Figure 4).

        Figure & description: Area of squares represents sample size, horizontal lines are 95% confidence interval, diamond and vertical dotted line show the pooled weighted estimate. Analysis description: When asked if they had personal knowledge of a colleague who fabricated or falsified research data, or who altered or modified research data (Table S3, questions, 1, 6, 7, 10, 20, 21, 29, 32, 34, 37, 45, 54) between 5.2% and 33.3% of respondents replied affirmatively (N=12, crude unweighted mean: 16.66%, 95%CI = 9.91-23.40). Meta-analysis yielded a pooled weighted estimate of 14.12% (95% CI: 9.91-19.72) (Figure 4). If only questions explicitly using the words "fabrication" or "falsification" were included (Table S3, questions 1, 6, 7, 10, 17, 21, 29, 32, 37, 45, 54), the pooled weighted estimate was 12.34% (N=11, 95%CI: 8.43-17.71).

        Included studies (sorted vertically ~ Figure 4):

        • http://www.researchg..., June Price Tangney, Fraud will out? Or will it?, New Scientist 115, 1987, p. 62-63.
        • http://journals.lww...., Michael W. Kalichman & Paul J. Friedman, A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67, 1992, p. 769-775.
        • http://www.americans..., Judith M. Swazey & Melissa S. Anderson & Louis S. Karen, Ethical problems in academic research, American Scientist 81, 1993, p. 542-553.
        • http://sth.sagepub.c..., Michael Greenberg & Laura Goldberg, Ethical challenges to risk scientists: an exploratory analysis of survey data, Science, Technology, and Human Values 19, 1994, p. 223-241.
        • http://www.researchg..., Susan Eastwood e.a., Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey, Science and Engineering Ethics 2, 1996, p. 89-114.
        • http://jdr.sagepub.c..., Muriel J. Bebeau & Elaine L. Davis, Survey of ethical issues in dental research, Journal of Dental Research 75, 1996, p. 845-855.
        • http://www.tandfonli..., Carl May & Stephen Campbell & Helen Doyle, Research misconduct: A pilot study of British addiction researchers, Addiction Research 6, 1998, p. 371-373.
        • http://jme.bmj.com/c..., David Geggie, A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud, Journal of Medical Ethics 27, 2001, p. 344-346.
        • http://aaajournals.o... / http://www.researchg..., Michael J. Meyer & Dave McMahon, An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics, Issues in Accounting Education 19 (4), 2004, p. 413-442.
        • http://www.contempor... / http://www.researchg..., William Gardner & Charles W. Lidz & Kathryn C. Hartwig, Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, 2005, p. 244-251.
        • http://gradworks.umi..., Mark S. Kattenbraker, Health education research and publication: ethical considerations and the response of health educators, Southern Illinois University, 2007.
        • http://www.nature.co..., Sandra L. Titus & James A. Wells & Lawrence J. Rhoades, Repairing research integrity. Nature 453, 2008, p. 980-982.
      • 6:52 | Admission rates of Questionable Research Practices (QRP) in self- and non-self-reports (Figure 3).

        Figure & description: N indicates the number of survey questions. Boxplots show median and interquartiles. Analysis description:
        • Other questionable practices were admitted by up to 33.7% of respondents (Table S2) (Figure 3, N=20 (6 studies), crude unweighted mean: 9.54%, 95%CI = 5.15-13.94).

        • Between 6.2% and 72% of respondents had knowledge of various questionable research practices (Table S3) (Figure 3, N=23 (6 studies), crude unweighted mean: 28.53%, 95%CI = 18.85-38.2). When surveys asked about more generic questions (e.g. "do you have knowledge of any cases of fraud?" (Lock S, 1988 & Glick LJ, 1994)) or defined misconduct in more comprehensive ways (e.g. "experimental deficiencies, reporting deficiencies, misrepresentation of data, falsification of data" (Glick LJ, 1994)) between 12% and 92% replied affirmatively (Table S3) (N=10 (7 studies), crude unweighted mean: 46.24, 95%CI = 16.53-75.95).
        Included studies (boxplots from left to right ~ Figure 3):
        • Comitted QRP (N=20, 6 studies)

          List obtained via correspondence with Daniele Fanelli:
          Question reference nr° (~ Table S2)From studyQuestionX (behavior)% yes
          2http://journals.lww...., Michael W. Kalichman & Paul J. Friedman, A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67, 1992, p. 769-775.Since entering a college or university, have you X?Reported research or experimental results which you knew to be untrue?2
          5http://www.researchg..., Susan Eastwood e.a., Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey, Science and Engineering Ethics 2, 1996, p. 89-114.Since entering a college or university, have you X?Reported research or experimental results that you knew to be untrue.1.2
          8http://jme.bmj.com/c..., David Geggie, A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud, Journal of Medical Ethics 27, 2001, p. 344-346.Since entering medical school have you X?Reported research or experimental results which you knew to be untrue.1
          11http://pages.stolaf...., Brian C. Martinson & Melissa S. Anderson & Raymond de Vries, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435, 2005, p. 737-738.Have you engaged in X during the past three years?Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research.6
          12Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.12.5
          13Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.15.5
          14Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals.10.8
          15Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs.13.5
          16Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate.15.3
          18https://www.mja.com...., David A Henry e.a., Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: a survey of the Australian experience, Medical Journal of Australia 182, 2005 p. 557-560./Concealment of relevant findings.5.337
          19Failure to publish key findings.12.137
          20Premature termination of a study by a company.33.737
          21Major protocol changes while study in progress (excludes changes mandated by independent committees).537
          22Editing of report to make drug appear better than was justified by the study results.6.537
          23First draft of a report written by pharmaceutical company or contract research organization.29.637
          24Delay in presentation or publication of key findings unrelated to data integrity.16.337
          27http://www.contempor... / http://www.researchg..., William Gardner & Charles W. Lidz & Kathryn C. Hartwig, Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, 2005, p. 244-251.Have you participated in research involving X during the last 10 years?Deleted data in an unjustified way.0.9
          28Deceptive or misleading report of design.0.9
          29Deceptive or misleading report of data.1.2
          30Seriously misleading interpretation of results.1.6
        • Knows of colleagues who committed QRP (N=23, 6 studies)

          List obtained via correspondence with Daniele Fanelli.
          Question reference nr° (~ Table S3)From studyQuestionX (behavior)% yes
          8http://www.americans..., Judith M. Swazey & Melissa S. Anderson & Louis S. Karen, Ethical problems in academic research, American Scientist 81, 1993, p. 542-553.In this program, have you observed or had other direct evidence of X?Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research13.5
          9Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.19.7
          12http://sth.sagepub.c..., Michael Greenberg & Laura Goldberg, Ethical challenges to risk scientists: an exploratory analysis of survey data, Science, Technology, and Human Values 19, 1994, p. 223-241.How often [you] personally witnessed or had direct knowledge of X?Data destruction.9
          22http://jdr.sagepub.c..., Muriel J. Bebeau & Elaine L. Davis, Survey of ethical issues in dental research, Journal of Dental Research 75, 1996, p. 845-855.Indicate the number of IADR/AADR members you have observed/experienced exhibiting X within the last 5 years?Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research.51
          23Overlooking other's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.72
          24Failure to correct misinterpretation of data.59
          25Keeping research findings secret for several years.30
          26Failure to share data, methods and/or cultures that would enable other to re-examine/replicate or conduct further research.44
          27Failure to present negative result of coroporate-sponsored research.41
          35http://aaajournals.o... / http://www.researchg..., Michael J. Meyer & Dave McMahon, An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics, Issues in Accounting Education 19 (4), 2004, p. 413-442.Indicate first hand knowledge of X.Fail to report contrary data and/or results in a manuscript.69.3
          36Immediately destroy the original database that a study is based upon and, therefore, cannot be used to reconstruct the findings.6.8
          38http://www.contempor... / http://www.researchg..., William Gardner & Charles W. Lidz & Kathryn C. Hartwig, Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, 2005, p. 244-251.Is there X in a study during the past 10 years that you know personally about?Deleted data in an unjustified way.6.2
          39Deceptive or misleading report of design.7.2
          40Deceptive or misleading report of data.7.2
          41Seriously misleading interpretation of results.6.5
          46http://gradworks.umi..., Mark S. Kattenbraker, Health education research and publication: ethical considerations and the response of health educators, Southern Illinois University, 2007.Have you ever witnessed X firsthand?Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs, e.g. seleting a research design because of researcher familiarity versus a design appropriate to the study's purpose.39.2
          47Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research.7.8
          48Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source, e.g. funding source expects certain results so some data are omitted.7.8
          49Purposely overlooking other's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.22.2
          50Dropping observations or data points from analysis based on a "gut feeling" that they were innacurate.20.3
          51Unnecessarily changing the research design while a study is underway, e.g. switching from qualitative to quantitative methods after data collection has begun.11.8
          52Choosing a statistical technique for its ability to provide a more favorable outcome.45.8
          53Reporting only significant findings in published research.58.8
        • Knows of cases of bias or fraud (generic questions) (N=12, 10 studies)

          List obtained via correspondence with Daniele Fanelli.
          Question reference nr° (~ Table S3)From studyQuestionX (behavior)% yes
          2http://www.bmj.com/c..., Stephen Lock, Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain?, British Medical Journal 297, 1988, p. 1531-1535.Have knowledge of any case of X?Fraud58.2
          3http://www.oc.lm.ehu..., Richard L. Simmons e.a., Misconduct and fraud in research: social and legislative issues symposium of the Society of University Surgeons, Surgery 110, 1991, p. 1-7.Have you strongly suspected X?Fraud that has not been investigated in your university.15
          4Are you aware of at least one incidence of X?Fraud that has been openly investiaged in your institution.40
          5Fraud that has been investigated by quiet inquiry.43
          11http://sth.sagepub.c..., Michael Greenberg & Laura Goldberg, Ethical challenges to risk scientists: an exploratory analysis of survey data, Science, Technology, and Human Values 19, 1994, p. 223-241.How often [you] personally witnessed or had direct knowledge of X?Biased research design.28
          13http://www.tandfonli..., J. Leslie Glick, Perceptions concerning research integrity and the practice of data audit in the biotechnology industry, Account Res 3, 1993, p. 187-195. /Falsification of data or fabrication of experimental results, or experimental deficiencies, or reporting deficiensies, or misrepresentation of data.60
          14http://www.tandfonli..., J. Leslie Glick & Adil E. Shamoo, Results of a survey on research practices, completed by attendees at the third conference on research policies and quality assurance, Accountability in Research 3, 1994, p. 275-280.Have you ever suspected or determined that other researchers had been responsible for performing X?Experimental deficiencies, reporting deficiencies, misrepresentation of data, falsification of data.86
          28http://journals.lww...., Marlene Rankin & Esteves Maureen, Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing, Nursing Research 46, 1997, p. 270-276.Are you aware that another faculty member had X?Cheated on a research project.35.2
          30http://www.sciencedi..., Jonas Ranstam e.a., Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians, Controlled Clinical Trials 21, 200, p. 415-427.Do you know of any project in your personal proximity in which X occurred during the last 10 years?Fabrication or falsification of data, suppression or selective deletion of data, deceptive design or analysis, deceptive reporting of results, other.51
          31http://www.sciencedi..., Jonas Ranstam e.a., Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians, Controlled Clinical Trials 21, 200, p. 415-427.Have you been engaged in a project in which X was about to take place during the last 10 years?Fabrication or falsification of data, suppression or selective deletion of data, deceptive design or analysis, deceptive reporting of results, other.31
      • 8:31 | Actions taken against misconduct (Table 2).

        Analysis description: Five of the included studies asked respondents what they had done to correct or prevent the act of misconduct they had witnessed. Around half of the alleged cases of misconduct had any action taken against them (Table 2). No study asked if these actions had the expected outcome. One survey [Gardner, 2005] found that 29% of the cases of misconduct known by respondents were never discovered.
    • 9:32 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his 2010 article ""Positive" Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences":
      • 10:27 | Positive Results by Disciplinary Domain (Figure 3).

        Figure & description: Percentage of papers that supported a tested hypothesis, classified by disciplinary domain. Blue = including only pure disciplines, Red = including only applied disciplines, Black = all disciplines included. Error bars represent 95% logit-derived confidence interval. For domain composition see Figure 4. Analysis description: The disciplinary domain of a paper was a significant predictor of positive results when all disciplines were included (Wald=9.335, df=2, p=0.009, OR(95%CI) of biological vs. physical sciences = 1.228(0.962-1.569), OR(95%CI) of social vs. physical sciences = 1.754(1.220-2.522)). When only pure disciplines were included, the effect was stronger (N=1691, Wald=13.34, p=0.001, OR(95%CI) of biological vs. physical sciences = 1.387(1.041-1.847), OR(95%CI) or social vs. physical sciences = 2.207(1.431-3.402)). Among applied disciplines, however, positive results were uniformly high and not significantly different (N=743, Wald=0.110, p=0.946; power to detect a small (OR=1.5), medium (OR=2.5) and large effect (OR=4.5), respectively = 0.343, 0.89 and 0.996; OR(95%CI) of biological vs. physical sciences = 1.068(0.66-1.727), OR(95%CI) of social vs. physical = 1.105(0.565-2.161)) (Fig. 3).
        • General Methodology by Discipline and by Domain (Figure 4).

          Figure & description: Methodology employed by papers in different disciplines and domains. Methodological categories correspond to basic characteristics of the outcome: whether it measured physical/chemical parameters as opposed to behavioural parameters, and whether the object of study was non-biological, biological non-human, or biological human (see Methods for further details). Analysis description: The methodology of papers varied significantly between disciplines (χ2=4271.298, df=152, p<0.001), but there was also considerable within-discipline variability, particular among the physical and biological sciences (Fig. 4). Methods (extract regarding methodological categories, as referenced in Figure 4): To identify methodological categories, the outcome of each paper was classified according to a set of binary variables: 1-outcome measured on biological material; 2- outcome measured on human material; 3-outcome exclusively behavioural (measures of behaviours and interactions between individuals, which in studies on people included surveys, interviews and social and economic data); 4-outcome exclusively non-behavioural (physical, chemical and other measurable parameters including weight, height, death, presence/absence, number of individuals, etc…). Biological studies in vitro for which the human/non-human classification was uncertain were classified as non-human. Different combinations of these variables identified mutually exclusive methodological categories: Physical/Chemical (1-N, 2-N, 3-N, 4-Y); Biological, Non-Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-N, 4-Y); Behavioural/Social (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-N), Behavioural/Social + Biological, Non-Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-Y), Other methodology (1-Y/N, 2-Y/N, 3-N, 4-N).
      • 10:46 | Positive Results by Methodological Category (Figure 5).

        Figure & description: Percentage of papers that supported a tested hypothesis in pure (top) and applied (bottom) disciplines, plotted by general characteristics of their methodology (defined by the outcome, see also Figure 4). The “other methodology” category is not shown. Black = studies on non-human material or subjects, Red = studies on human material or subjects. Error bars represent 95% logit-derived confidence interval. Analysis description: Methodological category was a significant predictor of positive results both when all disciplines and only pure disciplines were included (respectively, Wald=37.943 and Wald=33.834, df=8, p<0.001), but not when only applied disciplines were included (Wald=9.328, p=0.315; power to detect a small, medium and large effect, respectively 0.18, 0.575 and 0.867) (Fig. 5). Including all disciplines, behavioural/social studies on humans (whether or not they included non-behavioural methods) reported significantly more positive results than behavioural studies on non-humans (tot N=685, Wald=9.669, df=1, p=0.002, OR(95%CI) = 2.046(1.303–3.213), while no difference between human and non-human was observed among biological, non-behavioural studies (tot N=1328, Wald=0.232, df=1, p=0.630, OR(95%CI) = 1.088(0.771–1.537); power to detect a small, medium and large effect, respectively = 0.551, 0.991 and 0.999). These latter reported significantly more positive results than behavioural studies on non-humans (tot N=1511, Wald=4.764, df=1, p=0.029, OR(95%CI) = 1.541(1.045–2.273).
      • 11:19 | Positive Results by Discipline (Figure 1).

        Figure & description: Name of discipline, abbreviation used throughout the paper, sample size and percentage of "positive" results (i.e. papers that support a tested hypothesis). Classification by discipline was based on the Essential Science Indicators database, the hard/soft, pure/applied and life/non-life categories were based on previous literature (see text for details). Error bars represent 95% logit-derived confidence interval. Analysis description:
        • A total of 2434 papers were included in the analysis. No paper testing a hypothesis was retrieved from mathematical journals, and the "multidisciplinary" category (which includes journals like Nature, Science, PNAS, etc…) was excluded. Therefore, the sample represented 20 of the 22 disciplines in the Essential Science Indicators database (Fig. 1). Overall, 2045 papers (84%) reported a positive or partial support for the tested hypothesis. Positive results were distributed non-randomly between disciplines (χ2=61.934. df=19, p<0.0001).

        • Space Science had the lowest percentage of positive results (70.2%) and Psychology and Psychiatry the highest (91.5%). The overlap between disciplines in the physical, biological and social sciences was considerable (Fig. 1), yet the rank observed (based on the frequency of positive results) and that predicted by the hypothesis (physical = I, biological = II and social sciences = III) tended to correlate when all disciplines were included (Kendall's τ-c=0.353±0.194SE, T=1.813, p=0.07), and were significantly correlated when only pure disciplines (Biglan A, 1973 & Smart JC & Elton CF, 1982 & Stoecker JL, 1993) were included (τ-c=0.568±0.184SE, T=3.095, p=0.002). Applied disciplines showed no significant trend (τ-c=0.061±0.364SE, T=0.168, p=0.867).
      • 12:02 | The famous fraud by Diederik A. Stapel Wikipedia | Stapel Investigation is mentioned.
    • 13:49 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his own 2010 article "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data":
      • 14:21 | "Positive" results by per-capita publication rate (Figure 2).

        Figure & description: Percentage of papers supporting a tested hypothesis in each US state plotted against the state's academic article output per science and engineering doctorate holder in academia in 2003 (NSF data). Papers were published between 2000 and 2007 and classified by the US state of the corresponding author. US states are indicated by official USPS abbreviations. For abbreviations legend, see Figure 1. Analysis description: The probability of papers to support the tested hypothesis increased significantly with the per capita academic productivity of the state of the corresponding author (b=1.383±0.682, Wald test=4.108, df=1, p=0.043, Odds-Ratio (95%CI)=3.988(1.047–15.193), Figure 2).
        • Percentage of positive results by US state (Figure 1).

          Figure & description: Percentage and 95% logit-derived confidence interval of papers published between 2000 and 2007 that supported a tested hypothesis, classified by the corresponding author's US state (sample size for each state is in parentheses). States are indicated by their official USPS abbreviations: AL-Alabama, AK-Alaska, AZ-Arizona, AR-Arkansas, CA-California, CO-Colorado, CT-Connecticut, DC-District of Columbia, FL-Florida, GA-Georgia, HI-Hawaii, ID-Idaho, IL-Illinois, IN-Indiana, IA-Iowa, KS-Kansas, KY-Kentucky, LA-Louisiana, ME-Maine, MD-Maryland, MA-Massachusetts, MI-Michigan, MN-Minnesota, MS-Mississippi, MO-Missouri, MT-Montana, NE-Nebraska, NV-Nevada, NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey, NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, OH-Ohio, OK-Oklahoma, OR-Oregon, PA-Pennsylvania, RI-Rhode Island, SC-South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, TN-Tennessee, TX-Texas, UT-Utah, VT-Vermont, VA-Virginia, WA-Washington, WV-West Virginia, WI-Wisconsin, WY-Wyoming. All US states were represented in the sample except Delaware. Analysis description: A total of 1316 papers were included in the analysis. All US states and the federal district were represented in the sample, except Delaware. The number of papers per state varied between 1 and 150 (mean: 26.32±4.16SE), and the percentage of positive results between 25% and 100% (mean: 82.38±15.15STDV, Figure 1). The number of papers from each state in the sample was almost perfectly correlated with the total number of papers that each state had published in 2003 according to NSF (Pearson's r=0.968, N=50, P<0.001), as well as any other year for which data was available (i.e. 1997, 2001 and 2005, r≥0.963 and p<0.001 in all cases). This shows the sample to be highly representative of academic publication patterns in the US.
    • 14:50 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his 2011 paper "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries".
    • 15:35 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his 2012 presentation "When east meets west…does bias increase? A preliminary study on South Korea, United States and other countries".
    • 17:07 | Marco Pautasso's 2010 article "Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases" is presented.
    • 17:26 | Marcus R. Munafò's & Angela S. Attwood's & Jonathan Flint's "Letter to the Editor: Bias in genetic association studies: effects of research location and resources" is mentioned.
    • 18:24 | Daniele Fanelli discusses his chapter "" in the 2011 book "Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment", which is edited by Tony Mayer & Nicholas Steneck.
    • 21:04 | Initiatives to improve reporting standards are mentioned:
    • 21:35 | A quote in Daniele Fanelli's 2013 column "Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting": In tackling these issues, a good start would be to redefine misconduct as distorted reporting: "any omission or misrepresentation of the information necessary and sufficient to evaluate the validity and significance of research, at the level appropriate to the context in which the research is communicated".38

    Joeri K. Tijdink's "Science fraud and publication pressure"

    ►

    "Science fraud. Discussion", by Marie-Christine Janssens & Daniele Fanelli & Joeri K. Tijdink & Reinout Verbeke (moderator).

    ►
    • 0:00 | Reinout Verbeke (moderator) introduces Marie-Christine Janssens.
    • 0:39 | Marie-Christine Janssens, who was (I can't retreive any current membership) a member of the Commission on Scientific Integrity (CSI) at the University of Leuven.
    ... ... to be updated ... ...

Ghostwriting

In German newspapers, occasionally there appear interviews with ghostwriters of scientific dissertations, who have e.g. ghostwritten 80 theses.42 Herbert Jost-Hof ACAD WRITE | Facebook | Xing | Facebook is such a ghostwriter, which has ghostwritten ±50 academic theses. His story is audio-visualized in a short 5-min. German video.43 His opinion on the origin clearly points to a structural problem: If the educational system in Germany would be a different one, when it would function differently; presumably, or perhaps even with certainty, this need would not be demanded. I believe that the principal problem of our educational system is the emphasis; no matter what gets said; on quantities, and not on qualities. How is the quality of tertiary education measured? By the number of degrees, by the number of publications, by the number of international contacts in relation to research projects et cetera et cetera... It's all about quantity. Even when one has the opinion: "Actually, that is not okay". Then one should ask: "Yes, but why does this occur to begin with; why is there such a need?" But to merely retreat to this position: "Oh, that is all behbeh, like the scientists say, and one doesn't do that" ... that doesnt change anything.44 One of the largest ghostwriting companies in Germany, entitled ACAD WRITE, claims to have written 8.608 academic papers between 2004 & 2014.45 Regarding theses (more restricted than the number of papers mentioned above), this company reports that 50 percent of the theses they have ghostwritten are graduate (master's or comparable) theses & ±10.5% are PhD dissertations.46 President of German Association of University Professors and Lecturers (DVH), Michael Hartmer DVH, thinks ghostwriting is on the rise, unfortunately: The tendency seems to be rising anyway. Science stands for impartiality and honesty. The trust in science is being shocked by ghostwriting. That is an immense societal damage.47

Plagiarism

Some more impressions from the German context: Volker Rieble WikipediaGerman | Zentrum für Arbeitsbeziehungen und Arbeitsrecht (ZAAR) | Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (a German lawyer, professor and plagiarism expert) sais there is not enough discussion & action on plagiarism. Even when the 2005-2013 German Federal Minister of Education and Research (how ironic), Annette Shavan Wikipedia | Official site, was accused of serious plagiarism, and had her PhD revoked; Volker Rieble claims the debate gets nipped in the bud very quickly. Volker Rieble also criticizes e.g. the case of Minister for Education and Cultural Affairs of Saxony Roland Wöller WikipediaGerman | Political site (CDU) German, which very likely committed serious plagiarism, which however didn't result in a loss of his PhD.48 VroniPlag Wiki Official site | Wikipedia has resulted in the revocation of PhD's: The VroniPlag Wiki is a wiki started 28/3/2011 at Wikia that examines and documents the extent of plagiarism in German doctoral theses.49 A similar project in Russia is called Dissernet Wikipedia | Official site Russian.

Neoliberalistic marketed universities, slaves of short-term benefits

As I lack the time & knowledge to write any scientific investigation of profound depth, I will limit myself to a simple philosophical (in the sense that the task of philosophy might be understood as clarifying every thought which can be thought) reflection, which can be understood by reading the following criticism: Nobel laureate James Dewey Watson Wikipedia has said (2013): The main factor holding us back from overcoming most of metastatic cancer over the next decade may soon no longer be lack of knowledge but our world’s increasing failure to intelligently direct its "monetary might" towards more human-society-benefiting directions.50 I apologize for my lack of elaboration and knowledge, which leaves this passage but an abstract and structural & un-nuanced philosophical criticism.

Praiseworthy initiatives?

Possibly noteworthy to me seems to be the Open Science Framework Wikipedia | Official site. The OSF is a free service and is where all the experimental protocols, materials, data, analysis, and results will made openly available to the public.51 Pubpeer: PubPeer started from the lack of post-publication peer discussion on journal websites. Thus was born an idea for a website where open peer review was not intimidating to users, while maintaining the rigor and anonymity of the closed review process currently used by the major journals.52 Retraction Watch: Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process.53

Related MOOCs

Please contact me if you would like to suggest any other MOOC relevant to this list.

Scientific integrity

Meta-courseCourseLead educators
Academic Integrity: Values, Skills, Action FutureLearnJason M. Stephens ResearchGate | Professional site | University of Auckland | LinkedIn
Become a Social Scientist: Methods and StatisticsSolid Science: Research Methods CourseraAnnemarie Zand Scholten ResearchGate | LinkedIn | University of Amsterdam | Coursera
The New StatisticsThe New Statistics: Estimation and Research Integrity Association for Psychological ScienceGeoff Cumming La Trobe University | The Conversation
The New Statistics: Estimation for better research La Trobe University

Statistics in general

Meta-courseCourseLead educators
I "Heart" Stats: Learning to Love Statistics edXDaniel J. Meyers Wikipedia | University of Notre Dame | President Leadership Council @ University of Notre Dame | edX
Introduction to StatisticsIntroduction to Statistics: Descriptive Statistics edX
Introduction to Statistics: Probability edX
Introduction to Statistics: Inference edX
Statistical Learning Stanford Online (Open edX)
Intro to Statistics UdacitySebastian Thrun Wikipedia | Twitter | The Thrun Lab @ Stanford University | TED | Udacity | LinkedIn
Statistics Udacity
Intro to Inferential Statistics Udacity
Intro to Descriptive Statistics Udacity
Data Analysis with R Coursera
Statistics One CourseraAndrew Conway Coursera | Department of Psychology @ Princeton University | The Human Working Memory Lab @ Princeton University
Data Analysis and Statistical Inference CourseraMine Çetinkaya-Rundel Coursera | Personal site @ Duke University | Twitter | LinkedIn | International Society for Bayesian Analysis
Become a Social Scientist: Methods and Statistics CourseraQualitative Research Methods CourseraGerben Moerman Wikipedia | Academia | ResearchGate | Coursera | University of Amsterdam | LinkedIn
Descriptive Statistics CourseraMatthijs Rooduijn Personal site | ResearchGate | University of Amsterdam | Coursera | Twitter | Stuk Rood Vlees Dutch
Inferential Statistics CourseraAnnemarie Zand Scholten ResearchGate | LinkedIn | University of Amsterdam | Coursera
Rice Virtual Lab in Statistics (RVLS)David Mark Lane ResearchGate | Rice University | Psychology @ Rice University
Data Science Coursera

9 courses & 1 capstone project

Mathematical Biostatistics Boot Camp Mathematical Biostatistics Boot Camp 1 CourseraBrian Caffo Wikipedia | YouTube | Academic site @ John Hopkins University | LinkedIn | Github | Coursera | Personal site | Twitter
Mathematical Biostatistics Boot Camp 2 Coursera

Applied statistics

ApplicationMeta-courseCourseLead educators
Life SciencesAdvanced Statistics for the Life Sciences edXRafael A. Irizarry RafaLab @ Harvard University | Twitter | YouTube | edX & Michael Love Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics | Personal site | Personal blog | edX | Twitter | GitHub | Google Scholar
Statistics and R for the Life Sciences edX
BioinformaticsGenomic Data Science CourseraStatistics for Genomic Data Science CourseraJeffrey Leek Personal site | Twitter | John Hopkins University | Google Scholar | Simply Statistics | LinkedIn | Coursera
Bioinformatic methodsBioinformatic Methods I Coursera
Bioinformatic Methods II Coursera

Philosophy of science

CourseLead educators
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial edX
  • The University of Queensland Wikipedia | Official site
  • Many other universities...
Philosophy and the Sciences CourseraThe University of Edinburgh Wikipedia | Official site
Introduction to Philosophy Coursera
  • Part 2: "What is Knowledge? And Do We Have Any?" Coursera.
Introduction to Philosophy: God, Knowledge and Consciousness edX
  • Part 2: Knowledge and Justified Belief.
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Coursera
Critical Thinking. Reason and Fair Play in Communication IversityRadu Atanasiu Maastricht School of Management Romania (MSM) | LinkedIn

Add new comment