Send us a link
"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues.
This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.
The flourishing of citizen science is an exciting phenomenon with the potential to contribute significantly to scientific progress. However, we lack a framework for addressing in a principled and effective manner the pressing ethical questions it raises. We argue that at the core of any such framework must be the human right to science.
This year, 272 journals will receive their first Impact Factor. The JCR will also suppress 39 titles –29 for high rates of self-citation and 10 for “citation stacking”.
How does the future for open access look?
Are you a champion of open science and open data? Mozilla is seeking researchers eager to advance openness in science and data within their institutions.
Carlos Moedas has proposed setting up a European Innovation Council to fund applied research and innovation.
Thierry Mandon replaces Geneviève Fioraso, who stepped down in March for health reasons, leaving France without anyone heading the research brief for three months.
The US government is considering policy changes that could dramatically affect how researchers handle equipment and information that have national-security implications. Scientists would need to reconsider what they can discuss with graduate students from other countries, or when traveling abroad on work trips.
Italy will be implementing ORCID on a national scale. 70 universities and 4 research centers will initially participate in the consortium.
ORCID will now be offered to UK higher education institutions through a national consortium arrangement operated by Jisc.
Productive researchers with high-impact papers and those working in countries were the pressure to publish is intense are less likely to produce retracted papers and are more likely to correct them.
Researchers hope that a more pluralistic parliament will put an end to interference and slipping standards.
Proposed controls on foreign operations in China are a threat to scientific collaboration.
Pope Francis squarely blames the burning of fossil fuels for climate change in the leaked draft of his long-awaited environmental encyclical.
What lessons does the Swiss ambivalence towards European Union hold for the UK?
To realize the full potential of large data sets, researchers must agree on better ways to pass data around, says Martin Bobrow.
Would we worry a little more about academic freedom—about his right to hold an unpopular view and still be a member of the academic community?
Investigating fraud is hard work, and it is easier for journal editors to ignore the problem and perpetuate the myth that peer review of trial reports ensures their scientific quality.
Scientific research is awesome-we read it, we build upon it, we innovate with it, and we love it. But the process of getting research from the scientists who spend months or years with their data to the academics who want to read it can be messy.
Who has the most retractions? Here's the Retraction Watch list.
[3]A study at the University of Montreal shows that Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Sage now publish more than 50% of all academic articles. This number has been rising, thanks to mergers and acquisitions, from 30% in 1996 and only 20% in 1973.
Study calculates cost of flawed biomedical research in the US.
"Retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH."
"The right to read is the right to mine" : publishers are resisting a change to copyright law that would allow academics to digitally mine published research to help crack intractable problems.
Elsevier has filed a complaint hoping to shut down websites which are particularly popular in developing nations where access to academic works is relatively expensive.
About 3000 Russian scientists rallied in Moscow on Saturday to protest against government reforms of the research system and the imposition of competitive funding, which is not commonly used in the country.
The EPFL has launched an investigation into an alleged misappropriation of 218'000 CHF from its prestigious [16]Blue Brain Project.
