Send us a link
Corporate boards, the US Congress, and global gatherings like the just-wrapped WEF in Davos are all built on a simple theory of problem solving: Get enough smart and powerful people in a room and they'll figure it out. This may be misguided.
Growth in scientific publishing as a barrier to science communication.
In the face of routine rejection, many scientists must learn to cope with the insidious beast that is impostor syndrome.
Big US report documents increases in international collaboration and Chinese science output.
A wealth of opinions describing what remains to be done to resolve gender issues.
Rejection rates in Frontiers journals are around ~27%, most manuscripts are published within 3 months, and yet, Frontiers’ citations rates are amongst the very highest.
In an open letter some of the largest academic publishers and scientific societies are announcing that they will not just encourage, but ultimately require, researchers to sign up with ORCID.
Pathogens & Immunity promises a quick submission procedure, since it provides a reasonable flexibility about the length of the papers and authors are welcome to include reviews from other journals and their responses.
Analysis of seven prominent medical journals finds randomised controlled trials are far less likely to receive a press release than weaker observational studies.
Two NEJM editors say data sharing should happen symbiotically, not parasitically.
A WEF report on the widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labour markets over the next five years.
A white paper written by Leslie Vosshall and Michael Eisen aimed at promoting pre-print use in biomedicine.
Researchers are “choosing their lottery numbers after seeing the draw”, making medicine less reliable - and respected journals are letting them do it.
A Harvard professor reveals how his hiring committee whittles down the pile of job applications.
One of the strongest beliefs in scholarly publishing is that journals seeking a high impact factor should be highly selective. There is evidence showing this is wrong.
Authors tend to attribute manuscript acceptance to their own ability to write quality papers and simultaneously to blame rejections on negative bias in peer review, displaying a self-serving attributional bias.
This paper highlights key guidelines to help authors increase their data’s reuse potential and compliance with journal data policies.
This paper presents Wikiometrics: the derivation of metrics and indicators from Wikipedia.
Scientists who submit grant applications to the NIH will be required to explain the scientific premise behind their proposals and defend the quality of their experimental designs.
The design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage.
ERC funds 135 Proof of Concept grants, a press release.
A new initiative published this week outlines how scientists can make a change to open science practices at an individual level.
Science spending in Singapore is set to surge by 18%.
Times Higher Education World University Rankings data reveal the top 200 most outward-looking institutions.
$1000 to each of the first 1000 scientists preregistering their protocols with Nosek's Center for Open Science.
This is a proposal for a system for evaluation of the quality of scientific papers by open review of the papers through a platform inspired by StackExchange.
Last year "PLOS ONE" published 10% fewer papers than it did two years ago, but its editors are not alarmed.
The most prestigious journals publish the least reliable science (at least when looking at the available evidence from experimental fields).
Highly Cited Researchers in 2015 according to Thomson Reuters.
