Merge pull request #955 from bressler1995/open-science-101

Address Open Science 101 suggestion in Issue #926

Module_1/Lesson_4/readme.md

@@ -116,12 +116,12 @@ Incentives can come in many forms, but most in science involve proposal funding
 
 #### Challenge: Overvaluing Novelty
 
-<img src="../images/media/image330.jpg" style="width: 100%; height: auto;" />
-
 Awards (for example prizes or funding) are often given to those who make a big, new scientific discoveries or who create a new, exciting tool. This practice overlooks the community that wrote code, curated datasets, maintained fundamental existing tools, and many other important steps that enabled these novelties.
 
 Prizes often disincentivize crediting a team, since only one or a small group can be awarded a prize (for example, a Nobel Prize can be awarded to up to 3 people only). This emphasis on novelty and the individual are starting to change, with awards being offered to groups (e.g., The White House Office of Science & Technology Policy [Open Science Recognition Challenge](https://www.challenge.gov/?challenge=ostp-year-of-open-science-recognition-challenge)) and addition of funding solicitations offered for maintaining tools and infrastructure. However, it will take time for these changes to become the norm.
 
+<img src="../images/media/award-example.png" style="width: 350px; height: auto;" />
+
 #### Challenge: It Takes More Time to be Open
 
 Doing open science often requires more time and effort from researchers to start and maintain. For instance, it can take significantly more time to document and clean code to a degree that the public can easily understand and use it. At the moment, the scientific system doesn’t always reward extra effort like this, which can make it difficult for individuals to spend their time on open activities because it takes time away from starting their next paper. After all, published papers are the main currency of the current scientific system.