Imposter Syndrome Isn't the Problem - Toxic Workplaces Are
As young scientists, we are fooled into working harder and longer to live up to sky-high expectations and encouraged to feel inadequate.
Send us a link
As young scientists, we are fooled into working harder and longer to live up to sky-high expectations and encouraged to feel inadequate.
Now that many European library consortia are cancelling deals with publishers, how will libraries respond to a world of open access?
The National Cancer Institute has invested millions of dollars into determining the genetic sequences of patients’ tumors, and researchers have found thousands of genes that seem to drive tumor growth. But until patients’ medical records are linked to the genetic data, life-or-death questions cannot be answered.
A graduate student is analyzing how Stormfront and other racist websites misunderstand, and misuse, new scientific papers.
UK’s newly minted unified funding agency has released the first outline of its strategy. The long-awaited document gives the nation’s researchers an insight into how the mega-funding agency - which will command a budget of GBP6 billion (USD8 billion) - will work.
Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.
Visual exploration of projects within the OpenAIRE database.
Storytelling is easy to implement in your manuscript provided you know how. Think of the six plot elements - character, setting, tension, action, climax, resolution - and the three other story essentials - main theme, chronology, purpose. You’ll soon outline the backbone of your narrative and be ready to write a paper that is concise, compelling, and easy to understand.
It takes an average of 15 clicks for a researcher to find and access a journal article. This time could be much better spent
Peer review varies in quality and thoroughness. Making it publicly available could improve it.
Three steps that could be taken by funding agencies to support young investigators in more constructive and effective ways: (1) greatly expand the use of the New Innovator/Starting Grants awards, (2) increase the funding of young investigators through requests for applications, and (3) experiment with separate competitions for Early Stage Investigators when awarding traditional investigator-initiated R01 grants.
Something strange began happening with a U.S. Department of Education loan program known as Parent PLUS, under which parents borrow money from the government to finance their children’s education.
Sweden is the latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions, while negotiators share tactics to broker new deals with publishers. Inspired by the results of a stand-off in Germany, negotiators from libraries and university consortia across Europe increasingly declare that if they don’t like what publishers offer, they will refuse to pay for journal access at all.
Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints, based on contributions from the Knowledge Exchange Preprints Advisory Group.
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they've been formally published? A citation is much more than a directional link to the source of a document. It is the basis for a system of rewarding those who make significant contributions to public science.
A meta-analysis combining the most popular university rankings to find out which ones are best, and showing which university offers the best value for the money. Spoiler: Switzerland, for once, is a good deal.
The 2-day eLife Innovation Sprint was aimed at bringing together 'computer people' and 'science people' in order to create novel tools for open science.
Institutions, research funding bodies and publishers must all work together to change the system in the interest of advancing research, says Steven Inchcoombe.
The AI field is increasingly turning to conference publications and free, open-review websites while shunning traditional outlets - sentiments dramatically expressed in a growing boycott of a high-profile AI journal.
Scientists pride themselves on being keen observers, but many seem to have trouble spotting the problems right under their noses. Those who run labs have a much rosier picture of the dynamics in their research groups than do many staff members working in the trenches.
Just as the peer review system of journal publication is itself an ever-evolving construction, so too are the unspoken rules that govern which scientists share what.
In this era of billionaires and unequal funding, where is research going? And perhaps more importantly, how will our changing resources affect the training, success, and diversity of the scientists of our future?
Michael Eisen is anything but silent. In his career as a scientist, which has included a slapdash U.S. Senate campaign, blog posts, and nearly 39,000 tweets, he has lobbed grenades at the powers that be.
'Devil in the details' when US and European researchers try to work together under Horizon 2020. When it comes to US-European relations, nothing is simple these days.
Reproducibility failures occur even in fields such as mathematics or computer science that do not have statistical problems or issues with experimental design. Suggested policy changes ignore a core feature of the process of scientific inquiry that occurs after reproducibility failures: the integration of conflicting observations and ideas into a coherent theory.
Balancing due process with the academic community's right to know is no easy task, but critics say more could be done to weed out bad actors. Many universities halt investigations after an accused scientist departs, leaving future employers blind to the researcher’s history of allegations.