(All awkward grammar is entirely my fault.)
"1. Mitigation of publication flood
The number of publications around the world should be reduced (relative to the growing number of scientists) and thus - against the economic interests of publishers - also the number of journals. This is the only way to ensure that this important basis for assessing the quality of research will again consist of reflected and carefully evaluated results. And only then researchers will be able to again take sufficient note of relevant results and findings from their field.
2. Basic insights need permanent funding
Science needs durable and reliable funding, because the search for something new and for an increased understanding of nature follows radically different laws than a commercial enterprise. Of course academic institutions have to deal responsibly with their funds. We have to vehemently object however the expectation that academic institutions have to make direct financial profit or are evaluated by strongly economically oriented criteria. Rather, we should work together, even more than is already done today, to highlight the high intrinsic value of knowledge gain for the general public.
3. More emphasis on the content of scientific achievements
In the allocation of research funds it should be content that is assessed, not mindless promises of success of practical implementation. The qualitative assessment of the scientific work of a scientist or a researcher should at least equal in importance the quantitative bibliometric performance indicators. The sheer number of publications is not a valid criterion.
4. Proscription of strategic authorship
Authorship of a scientific publication requires substantial contribution to the content of to-be-published work. Authorship has become a currency of science, which is rewarded with money. The system for performance-based allocation of funds should therefore carefully investigate the actual contributions of the authors and proscribe a merely strategic authorship without substantial participation.
5. Researchers must write their own research proposals
External funding is an important competitive component of the academic system. Due to the trend to demand very high shares of external funding, the pressure has increased so much that a professional application system has formed, one in which scientists no longer write the research proposals themselves, but, in extreme cases, agencies formulate standardized applications. But scientific concepts need to be written by the researchers themselves. Ghostwriters must not be tolerated, not even in composite applications where parts written by different scientists are often "smoothed" by agencies.
6. Transparency in the presentation of data collection
Science needs transparency, despite the increasing complexity. Rapid technological progress, together with an excessive competition leads to more complex, and difficult to verify experiments. Without transparent and accurate representations of data collection and the scientific approach undertaken, more mistakes and improbities occur which jeopardizes the substance of science.
7. Good research takes time
Development and implementation of sound projects are not compatible with short-term contracts. The pressure generated by short-term contracts leads scientists and researchers to carry out small projects with no substantial knowledge gain and to publish fragments. Only contract terms that offer, through sensible conditions, the possibilities to plan long-term projects (esp. for young researchers) allow the quality of research indispensable for international competition."
This sounds very Germenglish, even to me ;-) Gee, all these many-syllable words and convulated grammatic constructs. I had to look up "improbity," and I'm not even sure I know what the German translation "Unredlichkeit" means (literally it means "something one doesn't speak of"). In any case, I hope it's roughly understandable. I think these are all very good points. However, I wasn't even aware that ghostwriting of proposals is an issue, I've never heard of this.
Do you have anything to add?