Jump to navigation
Enter the article’s url One of our curators will take care of it as soon as possible!
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Brian C. Martinson imagines how rationing the number of publications a scientist could put out might improve the scientific literature.
Staid and conformist, science risks losing its creative spark. Does it need more mavericks, or are they part of the problem?
Professors and aspiring professors are complicit in perpetuating a rigged system.
When a scientific paper is retracted, it can produce long-term aftershocks.
This inequality needs to be addressed now.
Non-profit is not synonymous with good, and for-profit is not synonymous with exploitation.
Jenny Rohn: Restricting Nobel prizes to three individuals has always been problematic, and increasingly glosses over the contributions of everyday scientists.
Alfred Nobel didn’t foresee the current era of mega scientific collaboration.
They distort the nature of the scientific enterprise, rewrite its history, and overlook many of its most important contributors.
There is an urgent need by research communities and public agencies to collaboratively reclaim the infrastructure around the academic knowledge production process.
While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.
This week’s Nobel winners will have drawn on teams, often multinational.
In 1991, an electronic system through which interested parties could access non-peer-reviewed physics papers was launched by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Once again, the term "open" requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
Bad research just doesn’t affect the people in the area around it, the people who might spend years trying to take a dodgy result and extend it.
How and why we should get rid of author lists in scientific publications.
Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.
Research institutions should explicitly seek job candidates who can be frankly self-critical of their work, says Jeffrey Flier.
Scientists have few direct incentives to replicate other researchers’ work, including precious little funding to do replications. Can that change?