Send us a link
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?
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.
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.
Enough with the long author lists - we are running out of space.
In academia, strong hierarchies and nepotism compound problems associated with biases.
The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?
In recent years science has entered a crisis of trust. The results of many scientific experiments appear to be surprisingly hard to reproduce, while mistakes have highlighted flaws in the peer review system.
Professors issue warning over obsession with performance management and research excellence.
The research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. But how do we know that all authors listed on a publication have actually been involved in the research?
While The Conversation is built around a journalistic model, there is a big growth in online, open-access journals each with different approaches to peer review.
Problems and limitations of the traditional and alternative peer review methods.
Overly optimistic investments in scientific fields, research methods and technologies generate episodes comparable to those experienced by financial markets prior to crashing.
Interview with Walter Gilbert, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
We need to deal swiftly with fraud when it is identified. But time after time I have watched not only the accused, but everyone around them, be treated with such sanctimonious disdain. by Michael Eisen
Research funding will continue to be haphazard if an anecdotal approach continues to be taken. by Julia Lane
The rate of retractions of scientific papers has been growing over the past decade, suggestive to some of a crisis of confidence in science. Can we no longer trust the scientific literature?
Scientists need ways to evaluate themselves and their colleagues. These evaluations are necessary for better everyday management: hiring, promotions, awarding grants and so on. One evaluation metric has dominated these decisions, and that is doing more harm than good.
Most academic papers today are published only after some academic peers have had a chance to review the merits and limitations of the work. This seems like a good idea, but there is a growing movement that wants to retort as Albert Einstein did to such a review process.
Higher education needs to break down the barriers that block pathways to cross-subject study.
Although approximately 50% of PhD students and postdoctoral scientists are female, males run the majority of research laboratories. Despite some reform over the past three decades, there is still an exodus of female scientists from academic research at the transitional stage between a postdoctoral researcher and laboratory head.
With only one in five National Health and Medical Research Council ( NHMRC) grant applications successful, and a similar rate for Australian Research Council ( ARC) Discovery grants, it's little wonder researchers are looking to alternate forms of funding - one of which being crowdfunding.
I've heard that we should stop talking about "pure" science and "applied" science; that we should only be talking about "good" science and "bad" science. Last year, CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark said as much during question time at her National Press Club address, and this year I heard it recommended again at the Universities Australia Conference.
