Send us a link
Is public money being thrown away on scientific research whose results won’t hold up to scrutiny?
Scientists on social media debate a call to require PhD students to replicate research before they can graduate.
What if I told you that half of the studies published in scientific journals today - the ones upon which news coverage of medical advances is often based - won't hold up under scrutiny?
What are the right lessons to draw from the rise in scientific retractions?
Active problem-solving confers a deeper understanding of science than does a standard lecture. But some university lecturers are reluctant to change tack.
The single figure publication is a novel, efficient format by which to communicate scholarly advances. It will serve as a forerunner of the nano-publication, a modular unit of information critical for machine-driven data aggregation and knowledge integration.
The difficulty in replicating research findings has been at the center of the attention in the specialized and lay press for a number of years and is more recently attracting the attention of the Administration and Congress.
This leaflet presents some initial results of the She Figures 2015 data collection. It provides data on the proportions of women and men amongst top level graduates and researchers.
PEERE is a project funded by the European Union to explore issues around journal and grant peer review, running from 2014 to 2018.
Survey results released last week by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) included an interesting nugget. Some 72% of respondents said that they had been unable to replicate a published experimental result. Yet a higher proportion (77%) said that they had never been told that their work could not be replicated.
Dalmeet Singh Chawla rounds up the recent discussion about single figure publications.
Massive study seeks to succeed where others failed, but faces tight deadline and questions about strategy.
Cindy Wu, a recent college graduate, had a great idea — and when she explained it, investors opened up their checkbooks
Statistics still show some fields of science remain heavily male-dominated.
Metrics play a growing role in managing research. But to understand their limitations, we need to draw on the humanities.
What can go wrong when governments use research to make a country look good.
To drive discovery, scientists heading up research teams large and small need to learn how people operate, argue C. Leiserson and C. McVinney.
Working longer hours leads to poorer productivity. If you’re trying to impress people and move up the ranks, the solution isn’t to work longer, but to work smarter.
Better communication between labs may resolve many reproducibility problems, according to [28]report.
Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes.
This study uses a bibliometric method to examine the relationship between two journal characteristics during 2009–2013: the article processing charges and the percentage of published articles based on work that is supported by grant-funded articles.
The time has come for the life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and scientific community.
Miguel Seabra has stepped down as president of research-advocacy group Science Europe with immediate effect. Elisabeth Monard, secretary-general of the Research Foundation Flanders, will be acting president until it elects a new president at its general assembly in November.
Perception that time should be spent improving research prowess.
A provision in a new biomedical innovation bill passed last week in the House of Representatives would create a new program to launch prize competitions at the NIH.
Move follows controversy over comment pieces and cover page for Science.
Dynasty Foundation liquidated after Ministry of Justice labels it a 'foreign agent'.
A visualization of 6,975 case studies capturing the work of 50,000 researchers working in 154 institutions and grouped into 36 disciplinary units of assessment.
Critics of the present system of science funding say it's rather like modern football where the richest clubs are the most successful, which makes them even richer enabling them to continue to be successful.
