Is the peer-review system broken?
Is the peer-review system broken?
A look at the PLoS ONE paper on a hand designed by “the Creator”
Send us a link
This renowned mathematician is bent on proving academic journals can cost nothing
This renowned mathematician is bent on proving academic journals can cost nothing
New startups like this one are trying to disrupt traditional academic publishing.
Psychology Is in Crisis Over Whether It’s in Crisis
The psychology establishment is fighting back against an attack on its reliability. But it might be letting emotion get in the way.
About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey
Compared with psychology, the replication rate "is rather good," researchers say
Psychology’s reproducibility problem is exaggerated – say psychologists
Reanalysis of last year's enormous replication study argues that there is no need to be so pessimistic.
Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern
Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern
Apparently creationist research prompts soul searching over process of editing and peer review.
The world’s top universities for attracting industry funding
Times Higher Education World University Rankings data reveal the 20 best institutions based on private-sector investment per academic
International collaboration 'crucial' for universities
Universities need to expand international engagement to remain competitive, according to a report by Digital Science.
More women publishing top medical papers
Female researchers now account for 37 per cent of first authors in medicine’s top journals, says US study
Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals
Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals
Observational study from 1994 to 2014
How many replication studies are enough?
Researchers on social media ask at what point replication efforts go from useful to wasteful.
The manuscript-editing marketplace
A peer-to-peer website aims to disrupt the author-services industry.
Close to the madding crowd
To engage the public in your work, whilst also solving that all-important research funding problem?
Utilization of the Crowd for Medical Research
Recently, some have begun to explore the utilization of the crowd for various purposes in medical research, including fundraising as well as crowdsourcing for intellectual analyses and insights.
Benefits and Implications of EU and Global Collaboration by UK Universities - Digital Science
Benefits and Implications of EU and Global Collaboration by UK Universities - Digital Science
A report on international academic collaboration across the UK research base and on the implications of EU and global collaboration for universities, research assessment and the economy.
Italian scientists protest ’serious neglect’ of research
Researchers gathered at Sapienza University of Rome last week to discuss the cuts in Italy's research budget.
Women under-represented in world’s science academies
Fewer than half of academies have policies in place to boost gender equality in membership.
A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology
We revisit the results of the recent Reproducibility Project: Psychology by the Open Science Collaboration. We compute Bayes factors—a quantity that can be used to express comparative evidence for an hypothesis but also for the null hypothesis—for a large subset ( N = 72) of the original papers and their corresponding replication attempts. In our computation, we take into account the likely scenario that publication bias had distorted the originally published results. Overall, 75% of studies gave qualitatively similar results in terms of the amount of evidence provided. However, the evidence was often weak (i.e., Bayes factor < 10). The majority of the studies (64%) did not provide strong evidence for either the null or the alternative hypothesis in either the original or the replication, and no replication attempts provided strong evidence in favor of the null. In all cases where the original paper provided strong evidence but the replication did not (15%), the sample size in the replication was smaller than the original. Where the replication provided strong evidence but the original did not (10%), the replication sample size was larger. We conclude that the apparent failure of the Reproducibility Project to replicate many target effects can be adequately explained by overestimation of effect sizes (or overestimation of evidence against the null hypothesis) due to small sample sizes and publication bias in the psychological literature. We further conclude that traditional sample sizes are insufficient and that a more widespread adoption of Bayesian methods is desirable.
Increasing access to the results of federally funded science
Three years after the OSTP directive, policies to make data and publications resulting from federally funded research publicly accessible are becoming the norm.
Science just wants to be free
On how scientific publishers are struggling to maintain their stranglehold over scientists.
The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world
The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world
What they fund and how they distribute their funds.
Mapping the hinterland: data issues in open science
This research investigates the relationship between open science and public engagement.
Enhancing Research Reproducibility
Recommendations from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
×