Send us a link
In a lawsuit filed by Elsevier, Sci-Hub.org is facing millions of dollars in damages. However, the site has no intentions of backing down and will continue its fight to keep access to scientific knowledge free and open.
Although a person's political views are a strong predictor of their attitudes on climate change and a handful of energy issues, their gender, age, religion, race, or education play a larger role on many other controversial topics.
When the Francis Crick Institute opens in London this year, it will be Europe’s largest biomedical research centre. Can director Paul Nurse make this gamble pay off for UK science?
London Mayor is proposing a $16 billion fund to encourage growth of emerging health-care companies in the U.K. in an effort to catch up to biotechnology clusters in the US.
The case of Dong-Pyou Han illustrates the uneven nature of penalties for scientific misconduct.
China is spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually in an effort to become a leader in biomedical research. But some experts worry that medical researchers in China are stepping over ethical boundaries long accepted in the West.
Mechanisms to help researchers to balance work and home lives have made a positive difference to the gender balance at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne.
Why is the Wellcome Trust mandating the use of ORCID?
Five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used.
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.
Importance of doctoral candidates in research makes it likely that many institutions will make the change, says principal.
The Federal Council has launched three new NRPs: "Medi/Healthcare", "Antimicrobial Resistance", and "Big Data".
Funding agencies should highlight their roles as risk managers to underpin public trust.
The scientific community must not rely exclusively on the impact factors of journals.
"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.
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.
