Abstract
Abstract Current reform movements in science seek to change how researchers do science, the tools and infrastructure they use to so, and how they assess each others’ work in terms of quality and value. Here, we argue that openness and replicability are quickly becoming key indicators for such quality assessments and they sometimes operate through citation strategies that actively pursue (some degree of) oblivion for non-reformed science. We do not oppose a genuine pursuit of transparency and methodological quality, but are concerned by how uncritical and oversimplified interpretations of both are skewing the collective memory of the scholarly community. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00274
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
