Don't let transparency damage science
Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science.
Send us a link
Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science.
It may not be sexy, but quality assurance is becoming a crucial part of lab life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A shortlist of recommendations to promote gender equality in science and stimulate future efforts to level the field.
A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors.
Report to the Swiss Science and Innovation Council SSIC.
A few years back, I asked two colleagues for letters of support for my grant proposal. One colleague drafted a letter personally. The other, citing heavy time pressures, asked me to draft the letter myself.
The DNA sequencing giant will launch a new company, Grail, to develop blood tests to detect cancer.
Fellow of the Royal Society and future President of the Royal Statistical Society, Sir David Spiegelhalter visits Dr Nicole Janz to discuss reproducibility in scientific publications.
A new study by a congressional watchdog agency finds that female scientists are less likely than men to receive research grants from the U.S. government.