This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
B a c kground: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases. Obj ectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences. M e th ods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design. Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting. Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact.
Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Juneman Abraham; Jonathan Peter Tennant; Olivier Pourret. The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia. European Science Editing 2021, 47, e59032 .
AMA StyleDasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret. The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia. European Science Editing. 2021; 47 ():e59032.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDasapta Erwin Irawan; Juneman Abraham; Jonathan Peter Tennant; Olivier Pourret. 2021. "The need for a new set of measures to assess the impact of research in earth sciences in Indonesia." European Science Editing 47, no. : e59032.
Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing. Obj ectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences. M e th ods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018. Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200. Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work.
Olivier Pourret; David William Hedding; Daniel Enrique Ibarra; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Peter Tennant. International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences. European Science Editing 2021, 47, e63663 .
AMA StyleOlivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant. International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences. European Science Editing. 2021; 47 ():e63663.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Pourret; David William Hedding; Daniel Enrique Ibarra; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Peter Tennant. 2021. "International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences." European Science Editing 47, no. : e63663.
The communication presented here focusses on international disparities in open access publication practices of the Earth Science community. We provide an overview of actual publication practices and comparison between several countries (from Global North and Global South; China, Denmark, France, Indonesia, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States of America) with the intention of stimulating further debate and raising awareness to aid the decision-making processes for the further development of open access practices in the Earth Sciences. This communication represents the authors’ opinions on the reasons for and background of the actively developing practice of scientific publishing via open access, as well as briefly contrasting the current conditions of academic publishing in different countries.
Olivier Pourret; David William Hedding; Daniel Enrique Ibarra; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Tennant. International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleOlivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Tennant. International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Pourret; David William Hedding; Daniel Enrique Ibarra; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Tennant. 2020. "International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences." , no. : 1.
Both Web of Science and Scopus are critical components of our research ecosystem, providing the basis for university and global rankings, as well as for bibliometric research. However, both are structurally biased against research produced in non-western countries, non-English language research, and research from the arts, humanities and social sciences. This viewpoint emphasises the damage that these systematic inequities pose upon our global knowledge production systems, and the need to research funders to unite to form a more globally-representative, non-profit, community-controlled infrastructure for our global research knowledge pool.
Jonathan P. Tennant. Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge. European Science Editing 2020, 46, e51987 .
AMA StyleJonathan P. Tennant. Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge. European Science Editing. 2020; 46 ():e51987.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan P. Tennant. 2020. "Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge." European Science Editing 46, no. : e51987.
Background: The researcher’s need to construct the state-of-the-art of a topic in Earth sciences is the only plausible reason to use scientific databases. However, nowadays, the primary function of such databases is often mixed up, confused with functions that are not intended for it, such as to select content based on language (e.g. English vs. Non-English issue), as well as to rank publications based on certain metrics. It is urgent to prove the fallacy of the trending use of the indexation.Objectives: This study aims to describe empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, openly accessible documents, and geographical coverages of Earth sciences topics based on searched scientific databases, as the basis for proposing new perspectives in Earth sciences research assessment.Methods: Document selection using ‘Earth sciences’ keywords in English and native languages was done on ten databases. Quantitative-descriptive design with a frequency analysis technique was employed. Results: (1) The number of English-written articles in international databases significantly exceeded the number of those written in native languages that were detected in national-level databases; (2) The sum of open access (OA) articles in national databases is higher than in other databases; (3) The geographical coverages of Earth sciences documents are unbalanced between countries when comparing retrievals from closed-commercial databases with the other databases. Conclusions: Earth sciences is one of the geographical sensitive field sciences that is closely needed to solve local problems with local physical and social settings. A combination of quantitative and qualitative measurements are very much needed in research performance assessment. Keywords: database bias; indexation; national database; Earth Science; Indonesia
Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Juneman Abraham; Jonathan Tennant; Olivier Pourret. The need for a new set of perspectives to measure research impact in Earth Sciences: Indonesian’s case. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleDasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Tennant, Olivier Pourret. The need for a new set of perspectives to measure research impact in Earth Sciences: Indonesian’s case. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDasapta Erwin Irawan; Juneman Abraham; Jonathan Tennant; Olivier Pourret. 2020. "The need for a new set of perspectives to measure research impact in Earth Sciences: Indonesian’s case." , no. : 1.
Commercial publishing houses continue to make unbounded profits while exploiting the free labour of researchers through peer review. If publishers are to be compensated financially for the value that they add within a capitalist system, then so should all others who add value, including reviewers. I propose that peer review should be included as a professional service by research institutes in their contracts with commercial publishers. This would help to recognize the value of peer review, and begin to shape it into a functional form of quality control.
Jon Tennant. Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour. European Science Editing 2020, 46, e51839 .
AMA StyleJon Tennant. Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour. European Science Editing. 2020; 46 ():e51839.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJon Tennant. 2020. "Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour." European Science Editing 46, no. : e51839.
Background Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. Methods We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. Results Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. Conclusion While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.
Lonni Besançon; Niklas Rönnberg; Jonas Löwgren; Jonathan P. Tennant; Matthew Cooper. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020, 5, 1 -11.
AMA StyleLonni Besançon, Niklas Rönnberg, Jonas Löwgren, Jonathan P. Tennant, Matthew Cooper. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020; 5 (1):1-11.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLonni Besançon; Niklas Rönnberg; Jonas Löwgren; Jonathan P. Tennant; Matthew Cooper. 2020. "Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing." Research Integrity and Peer Review 5, no. 1: 1-11.
Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.
Jonathan P. Tennant; Tony Ross-Hellauer. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020, 5, 1 -14.
AMA StyleJonathan P. Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020; 5 (1):1-14.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan P. Tennant; Tony Ross-Hellauer. 2020. "The limitations to our understanding of peer review." Research Integrity and Peer Review 5, no. 1: 1-14.
In recent years, the pace of the dissemination of scientific information has increased. In this context, the possibility and value of sharing open access (OA) online manuscripts in their preprint form seem to be growing in many scientific fields. More and more platforms are especially dedicated to free preprint publishing. They are published, non-peer-reviewed scholarly papers that typically precede publication in a peer-reviewed journal. They have been a part of science since at least the 1960s. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web to help researchers share knowledge easily. A few months later, in August 1991, as a centralized web-based network, arXiv was created. arXiv is arguably the most influential preprint platform and has supported the fields of physics, mathematics and computer science for over 30 years. Since, preprint platforms have become popular in many disciplines (e.g., bioRxiv for biological sciences) due to the increasing drive towards OA publishing, and can be publisher- or community-driven, profit or not for profit, and based on proprietary or free and open source software. A range of discipline-specific or cross-domain platforms now exist, with exponential growth these last five years. While preprints as a whole still represent only a small proportion of scholarly publishing, a strong community of early adopters is already beginning to experiment with such value-enhancing tools in many more disciplines than before. The two main options for geochemists are EarthArXiv and ESSOAr. A “one size fits all” model for preprints would never work across the entire scientific community. The geochemistry community needs to develop and sustain their own model.
Olivier Pourret; Dasapta Irawan; Jonathan Tennant. On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3360 .
AMA StyleOlivier Pourret, Dasapta Irawan, Jonathan Tennant. On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (8):3360.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Pourret; Dasapta Irawan; Jonathan Tennant. 2020. "On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3360.
An enormous wealth of digital tools now exists for collaborating on scholarly research projects. In particular, it is now possible to collaboratively author research articles in an openly participatory and dynamic format. Here we describe and provide recommendations for a more open process of digital collaboration, and discuss the potential issues and pitfalls that come with managing large and diverse authoring communities. We summarize our personal experiences in a form of ‘ten simple recommendations’. Typically, these collaborative, online projects lead to the production of what we here introduce as Massively Open Online Papers (MOOPs). We consider a MOOP to be distinct from a ‘traditional’ collaborative article in that it is defined by an openly participatory process, not bound within the constraints of a predefined contributors list. This is a method of organised creativity designed for the efficient generation and capture of ideas in order to produce new knowledge. Given the diversity of potential authors and projects that can be brought into this process, we do not expect that these tips will address every possible project. Rather, these tips are based on our own experiences and will be useful when different groups and communities can uptake different elements into their own workflows. We believe that creating inclusive, interdisciplinary, and dynamic environments is ultimately good for science, providing a way to exchange knowledge and ideas as a community. We hope that these Recommendations will prove useful for others who might wish to explore this space.
Jonathan P. Tennant; Natalia Bielczyk; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Paola Masuzzo; Tobias Steiner. Introducing Massively Open Online Papers (MOOPs). KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 2020, 4, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan P. Tennant, Natalia Bielczyk, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Paola Masuzzo, Tobias Steiner. Introducing Massively Open Online Papers (MOOPs). KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies. 2020; 4 (1):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan P. Tennant; Natalia Bielczyk; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Paola Masuzzo; Tobias Steiner. 2020. "Introducing Massively Open Online Papers (MOOPs)." KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 4, no. 1: 1.
How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society.
Tony Ross-Hellauer; Jonathan P. Tennant; Viltė Banelytė; Edit Gorogh; Daniela Luzi; Peter Kraker; Lucio Pisacane; Roberta Ruggieri; Electra Sifacaki; Michela Vignoli. Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLOS Computational Biology 2020, 16, e1007704 .
AMA StyleTony Ross-Hellauer, Jonathan P. Tennant, Viltė Banelytė, Edit Gorogh, Daniela Luzi, Peter Kraker, Lucio Pisacane, Roberta Ruggieri, Electra Sifacaki, Michela Vignoli. Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLOS Computational Biology. 2020; 16 (4):e1007704.
Chicago/Turabian StyleTony Ross-Hellauer; Jonathan P. Tennant; Viltė Banelytė; Edit Gorogh; Daniela Luzi; Peter Kraker; Lucio Pisacane; Roberta Ruggieri; Electra Sifacaki; Michela Vignoli. 2020. "Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research." PLOS Computational Biology 16, no. 4: e1007704.
Our scientific evaluation system is in a state of crisis. Every researcher has heard of the “publish and/or perish” culture: the fact that individual researchers are evaluated primarily based on the journals that we publish in, rather than any intrinsic merit or quality of our work. Countless pages in newspapers, blogs, and journals have been written criticising this evaluation system, and in particular, the pernicious use of journal brands and metrics like the Journal Impact Factor. Here, we discuss how the unholy trinity of Web of Science, New Public Management, and citation metrics combined to create this dysfunction. We propose three potential solutions to simultaneously combating its threat: policing the police; opening up peer review; and starting from scratch. We believe that through systemic evaluation reform, science can begin to break free from the 'tyranny of metrics', and begin to adopt a new functional role within society, particularly in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Agenda 2030.
Jonathan Tennant; Charlotte Wien. Fixing the crisis state of scientific evaluation. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant, Charlotte Wien. Fixing the crisis state of scientific evaluation. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant; Charlotte Wien. 2020. "Fixing the crisis state of scientific evaluation." , no. : 1.
One problem with any strategy is that it must be agreed upon, and if not this creates a first-mover tension between engaged stakeholder groups. Therefore, understanding the potential risks associated with a move to open scholarship at a combined individual and institutional level can help to mitigate them and overcome the collective action problem. This research proposal is based upon the Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development, which aimed to agree on a broad, international strategy for the implementation of open scholarship that meets the needs of different national and regional communities, but also works globally. As part of this project, we summarised key internal and external conditions that open scholarship faces, which represent potential focal points of future discussion, research, and policy development. Here, we distill this into key limitations to investigate.
Jonathan Tennant; Neo Christopher Chung; Tobias Steiner. Major socio-cultural barriers to widespread adoption of open scholarship. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant, Neo Christopher Chung, Tobias Steiner. Major socio-cultural barriers to widespread adoption of open scholarship. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant; Neo Christopher Chung; Tobias Steiner. 2020. "Major socio-cultural barriers to widespread adoption of open scholarship." , no. : 1.
Article 27 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that:(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Jonathan Tennant. How open science is fighting against private, proprietary publishing platforms. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant. How open science is fighting against private, proprietary publishing platforms. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant. 2020. "How open science is fighting against private, proprietary publishing platforms." , no. : 1.
When the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began on January 31, 2020, no-one could have anticipated the impact that it would have on our scholarly communication and publishing systems. That is, perhaps, unless you work on open source software. Right now, global research communities are united to collaborate on solving the threat of the pandemic, sharing resources and knowledge more efficiently and effective than ever before, a process broadly described as ‘open scholarship’ (Dunleavy, 2020). This is essentially akin to how free and open source software (FOSS) communities have been operating now for decades (Willinsky, 2005). Recently, we participated in a “massively open online paper”, or MOOP, that explored the intersections between FOSS and open scholarship (Tennant, Agarwal, et al., 2020). Here, we want to summarise our key findings from that project, and place them in the context of the current outbreak. Critically, this pandemic shows us that many of the pervasive and systemic issues surrounding the evaluation, valuation, use and operationalisation of “openness” in scholarship can be extremely easily bypassed when the social demand and urgency is there, thus showing that the primary barriers towards open scholarship are inherently political and not technical.
Jonathan Tennant; Tom Crick. What can scholars learn from Open Source software communities during pandemics. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant, Tom Crick. What can scholars learn from Open Source software communities during pandemics. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant; Tom Crick. 2020. "What can scholars learn from Open Source software communities during pandemics." , no. : 1.
Traditional methods of scholarly publishing and communication are ineffective in meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has demonstrated that, in times of need, the global research community can activate and pool its knowledge and resources to collaborate on solving problems. The use of innovative Web-based technologies, including open source software, data-sharing archives, open collaboration methods, and the liberation of thousands of relevant research articles from proprietary sources show us that the fundamental components of a fully open system are readily available, technologically efficient and cost-effective. If we are to achieve the SDGs by 2030, systematic reform and explicit adoption of open scholarship strategies at scale is necessary. We propose that the United Nations and parallel entities take a position of leadership by creating or funding an organisation or federated alliance of organisations to implement these reforms.
Jonathan Tennant; Wojciech Francuzik; Daniel J. Dunleavy; Benedikt Fecher; Monica Gonzalez-Marquez; Tobias Steiner. Open Scholarship as a mechanism for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant, Wojciech Francuzik, Daniel J. Dunleavy, Benedikt Fecher, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Tobias Steiner. Open Scholarship as a mechanism for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant; Wojciech Francuzik; Daniel J. Dunleavy; Benedikt Fecher; Monica Gonzalez-Marquez; Tobias Steiner. 2020. "Open Scholarship as a mechanism for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals." , no. : 1.
Olivier Pourret; David Hedding; Dasapta Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Tennant. International disparities in open access practices of the Earth Sciences community. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleOlivier Pourret, David Hedding, Dasapta Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Tennant. International disparities in open access practices of the Earth Sciences community. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Pourret; David Hedding; Dasapta Irawan; Haiyan Liu; Jonathan Tennant. 2020. "International disparities in open access practices of the Earth Sciences community." , no. : 1.
Jonathan P. Tennant; Sam Illingworth; Iain Stewart; Kirsten von Elverfeldt. Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics. Geoscience Communication 2020, 3, 71 -72.
AMA StyleJonathan P. Tennant, Sam Illingworth, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt. Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics. Geoscience Communication. 2020; 3 (1):71-72.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan P. Tennant; Sam Illingworth; Iain Stewart; Kirsten von Elverfeldt. 2020. "Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics." Geoscience Communication 3, no. 1: 71-72.
Jonathan Tennant; Sam Illingworth; Iain Stewart; Kirsten von Elverfeldt. Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleJonathan Tennant, Sam Illingworth, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt. Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonathan Tennant; Sam Illingworth; Iain Stewart; Kirsten von Elverfeldt. 2020. "Editorial: Geoscience in a time of pandemics." , no. : 1.
Olivier Pourret; Dasapta Irawan; Jonathan Tennant. On the potential of preprints in geochemistry: the good, the bad and the ugly. 2020, 1 .
AMA StyleOlivier Pourret, Dasapta Irawan, Jonathan Tennant. On the potential of preprints in geochemistry: the good, the bad and the ugly. . 2020; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Pourret; Dasapta Irawan; Jonathan Tennant. 2020. "On the potential of preprints in geochemistry: the good, the bad and the ugly." , no. : 1.