Ukraine's Science Revolution Stumbles Five Years on
On the five-year anniversary of an uprising that propelled Ukraine away from Russia and towards Europe, scientists say things are improving too slowly.
Send us a link
On the five-year anniversary of an uprising that propelled Ukraine away from Russia and towards Europe, scientists say things are improving too slowly.
From bias in peer review and unfair allocation of grant funding to sexual harassment and a gender pay gap, the scientific community certainly has a lot of work to do.
Gender and Precarious Research Careers aims to advance the debate on the process of precarisation in higher education and its gendered effects, and springs from a three-year research project across institutions in seven European countries. Examining gender asymmetries in academic and research organisations, this insightful volume focuses particularly on early careers. It centres both on STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and SSH (Social Science and Humanities) fields.
Current efforts to make research more accessible and transparent can reinforce inequality within STEM professions.
Despite growing awareness of predatory publishing and research on its market characteristics, the defining attributes of fraudulent journals remain controversial. The authors aimed to develop a better understanding of quality criteria for scholarly journals by analysing journals and publishers indexed in blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals and the lists’ inclusion criteria.
Following these guiding principles for sharing data can help researchers get ahead.
In a new study, researchers uncovered female programmers who made important but unrecognized contributions to genetics.
With thousand of pages of feedback on the Plans S implementation guidance, what themes emerged that might guide next steps?
Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues.
This article by Dr Hélène Draux, Research Data Scientist at Digital Science, and Dr Suze Kundu, Head of Public Engagement at Digital Science takes note of 11th February, the annual International Day of Women and Girls in Science.
On 11 February, the United Nations, partners worldwide, women and girls will mark the International Day of Women and Girls in Science.
PLOS welcomes Plan S as a 'decisive step towards the realisation of full open access'1, in particular the push it provides towards realization of a research process based on the principles of open science.
The social-media platform is often a tool for procrastination, says Jet-Sing M. Lee. But what else can it be?
February 11 was the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. This year, it was marked by a joint statement celebrating women’s achievements in science from Europe’s eight EIROforum laboratories.
February 11th was International Women and Girls in Science Day, but despite the best efforts of many parents, teachers, and policymakers over the last two decades the numbers are still dismal.
EUA has published a preview of the results of the latest edition of its Big Deals survey.
Study finds failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards.
Access to expert commentary and insight - and an invitation to co-create the system of the future
Universities are at long last undertaking efforts to collect and disseminate information about student career outcomes, after decades of calls to action. Organizations such as Rescuing Biomedical Research and Future of Research brought this issue to the forefront of graduate education, and the second Future of Biomedical Graduate and Postdoctoral Training conference (FOBGAPT2) featured the collection of career outcomes data in its final recommendations, published in this journal (Hitchcock et al., 2017). More recently, 26 institutions assembled as the Coalition for Next Generation Life Science, committing to ongoing collection and dissemination of career data for both graduate and postdoc alumni. A few individual institutions have shared snapshots of the data in peer-reviewed publications (Mathur et al., 2018; Silva, des Jarlais, Lindstaedt, Rotman, Watkins, 2016) and on websites. As more and more institutions take up this call to action, they will now be looking for tools, protocols, and best practices for ongoing career outcomes data collection, management, and dissemination. Here, we describe UCSF's experiences in conducting a retrospective study, and in institutionalizing a methodology for annual data collection and dissemination. We describe and share all tools we have developed, and we provide calculations of the time and resources required to accomplish both retrospective studies and annual updates. We also include broader recommendations for implementation at your own institutions, increasing the feasibility of this endeavor.
Two years into the Trump administration the damage done to science is significant but it would have been far worse without thousands of scientists and their allies calling out attacks on science and detailing the consequences of these attacks for public health and safety.
We first announced plans to investigate identifiers for grants in 2017 and are almost ready to violate the first rule of grant identifiers which is “they probably should not be called grant identifiers”.
As a community of 140 organisations who are committed to the advancement of open access publishing and who represent the majority of the of the OA journal output in the DOAJ*, OASPA is of course very supportive of the intentions of Plan S, as we commented previously at the beginning of October.
There is no question that we are facing significant challenges and opportunities as the traditional publishing model begins to falter. How the academy positions itself at this moment will have consequences for years to come.
The AHA fully supports broad access to the resources required to create new knowledge and share it as widely as possible. However, concerns about the principles set out in Plan S have led the AHA to write a letter to Coalition S members regarding the potential for harm to humanities scholarship.
To help us better understand and meet the needs of our current and future users, we invite you to complete this survey of what you know about ORCID, whether - and if so, how - you currently use ORCID and your experiences of doing so, what’s working and what isn’t, and more.
Female scientists are less likely to win research dollars from the federal government's grant agency (CIHR), when the grant application is reviewed based on the scientist leading the project, rather than the proposal.
Are you participating in a H2020 funded project? Would you like to know more on how to comply with the H2020 Open Access mandate? Join in this moderated FOSTER/OpenAIRE Course on Open Access to Publications in Horizon 2020.