The Protestant Church in East Germany played a decisive role in the peaceful overthrow of communism in the German Democratic Republic. As a shelter for action groups, as a champion of reformers, and as a voice for nonviolence, the church gave the people some where to meet, pray, talk, and eventually to unite in such numbers as to be a force of faith and justice which could no be resised.

For Seneca, the firmness of the Wise is shown in his ability to remain calm against attacks, as he explains in his treatise of that name. Attacks can come in the form of injustice, iniuria, and disparagement, contumelia; Seneca proves that neither of them affects the wise man. Contumelia is linked to contemptus in definition and conceptualization so that the remarks on how to deal with disparagement contain clues as to what contemptus means for Seneca. The article argues that Seneca (...) understands the term in a double sense: First, contemptus denotes a reprehensible attitude. Second, it designates a kind of indifference which is to be understood in the context of Stoic apatheia. (shrink)

Responding to this issue’s invitation to bring new disciplinary insights to the field of improvement science, this article takes as its starting point one of the field’s guiding metaphors: the imperative to “mind the gap”. Drawing on insights from anthropology, history, and philosophy, the article reflects on the origins and implications of this metaphoric imperative, and suggests some ways in which it might be in tension with the means and ends of improvement. If the industrial origins of improvement science in (...) the twentieth century inform a metaphor of gaps, chasms, and spaces of misalignment as invariably imperfect and potentially dangerous, and therefore requiring bridging or closure, other currents that feed the discipline of improvement science suggest the potential value and uses of spaces of openness and ambiguity. These currents include the science of complex adaptive systems, and certain precepts of philosophical pragmatism acknowledged to inform improvement science. Going a step further, I reflect on whether or not these two contrasting approaches within improvement science should be treated as incommensurable paradigms, and what each approach tells us about the very possibility of accommodating seemingly irreconcilable or incommensurable approaches within improvement science. (shrink)

In 2009, Scott S. Reuben was convicted of fabricating data, which lead to 25 of his publications being retracted. Although it is clear that the perpetuation of retracted articles negatively effects the appraisal of evidence, the extent to which retracted literature is cited had not previously been investigated. In this study, to better understand the perpetuation of discredited research, we examine the number of citations of Reuben’s articles within 5 years of their retraction. Citations of Reuben’s retracted articles were assessed (...) using the Web of Science Core Collection. All citing articles were screened to discriminate between articles in which Reuben’s work was quoted as retracted, and articles in which his data was wrongly cited without any note of the retraction status. Twenty of Reuben’s publications had been cited 274 times between 2009 and 1024. In 2014, 45 % of the retracted articles had been cited at least once. In only 25.8 % of citing articles was it clearly stated that Reuben’s work had been retracted. Annual citations decreased from 108 in 2009 to 18 in 2014; however, the percentage of publications correctly indicating the retraction status also declined. The percentage of citations in top-25 %-journals, as well as the percentage of citations in journals from Reuben’s research area, declined sharply after 2009. Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben’s articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations. (shrink)

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing (...) pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience. (shrink)

Thelen et al. offer an inspiring behavior-based theory of a long-standing cognitive problem. They demonstrate how joining traditions, old and new may open up the path towards embodied cognition. We discuss possible next steps. Self-organization theory could be used to address the formation of gaze/reach attractors and their optimality, given environmental control parameters. Finally, some clinical applications of the field model are advocated.

Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial verification. As (...) COVID-19 continues to affect academics and societies around the world, failures in peer review might also constitute a public health risk. The effectiveness by which COVID-19 literature is corrected, including through retractions, depends on the stringency of measures in place to detect errors and to correct erroneous literature. It also relies on the stringent implementation of open data policies. (shrink)

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing (...) pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience. (shrink)

Dieser Band versammelt originäre Beiträge am Schnittpunkt von Philosophie, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Kultur- und Theaterwissenschaft. Auf der Grundlage von Falluntersuchungen zum 17. Jahrhundert trägt er zum Verständnis der Rolle bei, die Instrumente im Schnittfeld von Wissenschaft und Kunst spielen. Die Beiträge verfolgen dabei die Hypothese, dass die Entwicklung und Gestaltung von Instrumenten wesentlich zur Eröffnung neuer Felder des Wissens, zur Entstehung neuer kultureller Praktiken, aber auch zur Abgrenzung bestimmter Genres, Methoden und Disziplinen beiträgt. Diese Perspektive führt die Beiträge dieses Bandes dazu, auf (...) neue Weise das, was ein Instrument überhaupt ausmacht, zu durchdenken und eine Reihe von Grundfragen zur Bestimmung des Instrumentes zu erarbeiten: Welche Handlungen verkörpert das Instrument? Welche Handlungen werden durch das Instrument ermöglicht? Wann werden Untersuchungsobjekte ihrerseits Instrumente? Welche Fähigkeiten setzt der Instrumentengebrauch voraus, welche produziert er? Durch die Kombination neuer theoretischer Modelle und historischer Fallstudien, durch den detailgenauen Nachweis des gegenseitigen Einflusses von Kunst und Wissenschaft am Schnittpunkt des Instrumentes betritt dieser Band Neuland. Er ist von großem Wert für alle, die sich für die Vorgeschichte unsere instrumentengeleiteten Wahrnehmung interessieren. Zu den Autoren des Bandes zählen neben den Herausgebern Jörg Jochen Berns, Olaf Breidbach, Georges Didi-Huberman, Peter Galison, Sybille Krämer, Dieter Mersch, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann und Otto Sibum. (shrink)

Dieser Band versammelt originäre Beiträge am Schnittpunkt von Philosophie, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Kultur- und Theaterwissenschaft. Auf der Grundlage von Falluntersuchungen zum 17. Jahrhundert trägt er zum Verständnis der Rolle bei, die wissenschaftliche Instrumente im Schnittfeld von Wissenschaft und Kunst spielen. Die Beiträge verfolgen dabei die Hypothese, dass die Entwicklung und Gestaltung von Instrumenten wesentlich zur Eröffnung neuer Felder des Wissens, zur Entstehung neuer kultureller Praktiken, aber auch zur Abgrenzung bestimmter Genres, Methoden und Disziplinen beiträgt.