opinion articles
Send us a link
Many researchers are positive about the new, burgeoning science culture, but they still hesitate to enter into an open exchange of knowledge. There are many reasons why – such as a lack of knowledge about data management and the fear of intellectual property theft.
How do we ensure the effective role of science in public policy-making? This well-worn, long-standing question reflects the fact that the answer is not simple. Later this month in Brussels, scientists and policy-makers will convene at the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Forum to consider the most promising ways forward.
In this Perspective, Thomas C. Südhof describes some of the current challenges to the peer review system that have endangered public acceptance of science and discusses possible avenues to addressing these challenges.
The giant journal company said it was merely protecting its own proprietary system. But a wave of critics on social media said they were suspicious of its motives.
Many people see privately funded research as a threat to academic independence, but this is an incomplete view. Experts with close connections to politics and business are a logical consequence of a knowledge-based society. It is time for a fundamental debate on responsible research partnerships.
Peer review is a thankless task, but journals have been experimenting with accolades and cash incentives for scientists who serve as peer reviewers.
A time traveler from 1915 arriving in 1965 would have been astonished by the scientific theories and engineering technologies invented during that half century. One can only speculate, but it seems likely that few of the major advances that emerged during those 50 years were even remotely foreseeable in 1915.
In an editorial in the 26 August issue of the journal Science, Jeremy Berg, the journal's 20th editor-in-chief, examines the importance of funding science steadily, with predictable budget cycles that allow science-funding agencies to do long-term planning that research projects typically require.
There is no perfect metric. There is no number or score which fully encapsulates the value, impact, or importance of a piece of research. While this statement might appear obvious, research evaluation and measurement are a fact of life for the scientific research community.
To make replication studies more useful, researchers must make more of them, funders must encourage them and journals must publish them.
New reviewers are anxious to get some formal coaching before they start commenting the work of fellow academics.
Scientists and science communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that’s an approach doomed to failure, says Richard P Grant.
Barbara A. Spellman on the role of technological and demographic changes
Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing. To save the enterprise, scientists must come out of the lab and into the real world.
The American Sociological Association is starting a conversation to include “public communication” -- work often largely ignored -- in the assessment of a scholar’s contributions. Why does it matter?
If we want to achieve the ambitions set out by the United Nations for global health and development by 2030, we need to bring two worlds closer together through a new concept—precision public health.
“Isn't this just a glorified postdoc position? Won't taking this offer hurt my chances of landing a tenure-track professor position?”
Why government leaders should publish the reams of data they’re collecting — and why citizens everywhere should push them to do so.
The U.S. presidential election shows how far the political conversation has degenerated from the nation's founding principles of truth and evidence.
Openly discussing the history of science, where is has gone wrong, and the incredible efforts individual scientists go to uncover fraud should inspire confidence in its self-correcting nature.
On The Natural Selection of Bad Science.
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus praise the growing scrutiny of scientific publications.
Covering sexism and sexual harassment in the sciences and academia may not yet be a full-fledged beat for journalists, but it's getting there.
Without open data, a scientific paper is little more than a statement that, in the author’s opinion, some evidence supports a certain set of claims.
Nonscientists should take part in discussions about research priorities and more.
A spirit of collective enterprise in scientific research is being replaced by a rush to assign precise credit for who did what.
There needs to be a transparent and openly recorded submission and review process.
Open source now runs the world. But it still faces problems
