What if universities had to agree to refund grants whenever there was a retraction?
Leonid Schneider argues for a new way to ensure accountability for publicly funded research. It has become clear that scientific dishonesty is rarely sanctioned.
Send us a link
European Commission reveals details of proposed cuts to science
The European Research Council (ERC) would lose €221 million, mostly in 2016 and 2017.
University challenge
Women shy away from fields in which talent, not hard work, is thought to be key, survey suggests.
Wellcome Trust collaborative awards
The Wellcome Trust launches the new Collaborative Awards, enabling teams of researchers to apply together and bring new perspectives to the work they are doing.
What is President Obama's 'precision medicine' plan?
In his hour-long State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama spent a few seconds announcing a "Precision Medicine Initiative," but did little to explain what he has in mind.
The big grants, the big papers: are we missing something?
A perverse focus on research cash and high-impact publications threatens careers and the aims of science itself, says Dorothy Bishop
How to give the next generation of scholars a career boost
Holly Else examines European efforts to make academic career paths less challenging to navigate
Crowdfunding propels scientific research
The government peer-review committees that oversee grants are conservative by design. Given that their job is to put taxpayers’ money to good use, they are often reluctant to take big risks. The opposite is often true for crowdfunded projects.
The not-quite-stated, awful truth
For all but a small percentage of aspiring researchers, doing a postdoc at a university is a lousy idea because it will neither result in an academic job nor otherwise advance one’s career.
The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful
Forcing research to fit the mould of high-impact journals weakens it. Hiring decisions should be based on merit, not impact factor.
Interview with Ivan Oransky
Ivan Oransky is a medical journalist, global editorial director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks and reports on retractions in research journals.
An open science peer review oath
We propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto.
The R-factor: A measure of scientific veracity
We propose to use the R-factor, a metric that indicates whether a report or its conclusions have been verified.
Restore the US lead in biomedical research
How the US position as a global leader in biomedical research is being undermined.
Imagine there's new metrics (it's easy if you try)
Some ideas on the re-ranking of universities.
Make data rain
Data-Level Metrics (DLMs): NSF-funded project which will pilot a suite of metrics to track and measure data use that can be shared with funders, tenure & promotion committees, and other stakeholders.
Open discussion with Michael Eisen
Michael Eisen co-founded the Public Library of Science, publisher of open access journals including PLOS ONE.
Nature magazine publisher to merge with Springer Science
Germany's Holtzbrinck, which owns Nature publisher Macmillan Science and Education, will combine the majority of its activities with BC Partners' Springer unit.
Anne Glover's science advisor role reinstated
The European Commission has agreed to retain the role of EU Chief Scientific Adviser, despite the departure of Anne Glover.
Dutch universities dig in for long fight over open access
Institutions 'unbending' on fee-free demand as talks with Elsevier resume. Meanwhile, a deal that meets the universities’ requirements was made with Springer.
A one-grant limit: NIH institute puts squeeze on flush investigators
Investigators with substantial, long-term, unrestricted research support may generally hold no more than one NIGMS research grant.
Evaluating your own paper
A few professional scientists have found a sneaky way to cheat their way up the career ladder. They evaluate their own research by pretending to be someone else.
Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year - but can't access many of the results
Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year - but can't access many of the results
The British commentator George Monbiot once compared academic publishers to the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, concluding that the former were more predatory.
What would happen if grant reviews were made public?
Researchers on social media discuss the potential impact of making peer review more transparent.
Unravelling the true cost of publishing in open access
Universities must continue to monitor and track the variety of associated spending related to journal publishing and access, argues Lorraine Estelle. Many universities are forecasting that their AP…
Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates
How a recent "bad luck" cancer study illustrates failure of science journalism.
A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce
A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce
On the delay in young scientists obtaining NIH grants.
The transformative nature of transparency in research funding
On transparency in the process of grant review.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
Evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work.
Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications
On the challenges of crowdfunded science projects.
×