Director General of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment & prof. in theoretical chemistry UiT. Twitters largely about science and science policy.
So, if the largest funder of basic research isn't going to fund research in the humanities, who will?: "Humanities expelled from key New Zealand research funding scheme" https://t.co/O8Lv4RS2Fh via @timeshighered
Hva blir soldatens rolle i framtidens væpnede konflikter? I denne artikkelen kan du lese mer om hva FFIs forskere tenker og forsker på om temaet.
https://t.co/KiURdxAy38
Working in a Norwegian governmental institution, we are expected to increase efficiency. Perhaps also something publishers should consider, given that the APC for an individual article on average has increased by 26% over the past 4 years. https://t.co/4XAXN0nGt1 via @eldiarioes
Worth a few minutes reflection: Does research funding competition risk prioritising high-quality research over research that best can mitigate societal challenges? "The Rat Race for Research Funding Delays Scientific Progress" https://t.co/zLpaa2Pg09 via @undarkmag
@CForoutanNejad@guanqichem Some of the best papers are: Maria Goeppert Mayer on two-photon absorption (we needed the laser), Metropolis (we needed the computer) etc. At the same time, I am also extremely happy when theor. predictions made is verified by exp. years later (though citations are then few...)
Do you remember which journal Alexander Fleming published his seminar paper on antibacterial properties of penicillin?: "Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV" https://t.co/XVrchrVvuJ
@CForoutanNejad I have no problem at seeing your point. The problem is of course that in doing evaluations, the science is not actually read. And whereas there are excellent work in prestigious journals, there are also a lot of work that are excellent by association: https://t.co/qhROc8zvy3