ScienceGeist

Move follows pressure on Tehran to re-examine case of Swedish-Iranian researcher Ahmadreza Djalali.

Some vaccine experts worry that "unblinding" the trials and giving all of the volunteers vaccines would tarnish the long-term results.

Both teams want to know when-or how often-the virus passed from animals to people. But the trail may have gone cold, and the search has gotten political.

Collaborative editing events open to both new and experienced users. Introduction to wikipedia editing included!

Some researchers worry that shifting priorities towards pandemic-focused science comes at the expense of other disciplines.

Die großen Verlage haben ein neues Geschäftsfeld entdeckt: die Überwachung von Wissenschaftlern und den Verkauf ihrer Daten. Sie nehmen dadurch weitreichenden Einfluss auf die Forschung.

Most funders have no plans to provide postdoctoral researchers with additional pandemic funding. Society will pay a high price if this neglect continues.

From July 2021 eLife will only review manuscripts already published as preprints, and will focus its editorial process on producing public reviews to be posted alongside the preprints.

Nature's first-ever survey of this key segment of the scientific workforce uncovers anxiety and doubt about their professional pathway.

Medical researcher Ahmadreza Djalali is to be moved to a different prison pending 'imminent' execution.

A surprise clutch of eggs has solved a century-old leaf insect mystery.

Expressive language can make for better reading, but pruning it from peer reviews might create a kinder research culture.

In March, when John Ioannidis published an opinion essay in STAT, the reaction was swift and brutal - but was it warranted?

By charging €9,500 to make research papers free to read, Nature journals have chosen to remain elite, exclusive and out of reach for most scientists in low- and middle-income countries.

Academics remain wedded to prestige indicators, but peer reviewers may conclude that the journal is profiteering.

Many institutions decline to participate in Dutch study, fearing bad press on a sensitive subject

Postgraduates have few staff benefits - but bear the responsibilities of the Covid frontline

Share price drops as critics question claim vaccine could protect up to 90% of people.

The European Commission's scientific publishing service has launched a new venue for EU research grantees to publish free-to-read results. The Open Research Europe platform promises beneficiaries an "easy, high quality peer-reviewed" system at "no cost to them". The twist: authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish - without the delay involved in traditional science publishing, the commission says.

Report suggests tree growth will not store nearly as much carbon as scientists hoped.

Researchers hope a 60% increase in funds can revitalize their austerity-hit scientific system.

How put your knowledge into practice at the heart of government during a national lockdown? Two social scientists with expertise in production and use of evidence in the UK reflect on their recent experiences. 

This professor's research into faculty hiring was a wake-up call, for him and his institution.

There's been even more good news this week, this time from the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials. But a closer look reveals some very shaky science.

Doctors and nurses on the front lines are running on empty, under increasing duress as the pandemic surges and hospitals are overrun with patients.

The tiny island nation brought huge scientific heft to its attempts to contain and study the coronavirus. Here's what it learnt.

We want to hear from scientists whose work has been upended - positively or negatively - by the pandemic.

This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used.

Through their responsive design, digital Open Science tools promise to enable and simplify collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups. But how inclusive are these tools actual

Gender differences in choosing to enter competitions are an important cause of the leaky pipeline for women in leadership roles and represent a considerable waste of human resources. We used an incentivized laboratory experiment to evaluate whether the introduction of random elements alters the gender gap in competitiveness. We found that focal random selection from a preselected pool removes the difference in competitiveness between men and women and does not dilute the qualifications of the entrants. The percentage of women who took part in competitions was nearly triple, and that of high-ability women double, with focal random selection compared to selection in pure performance competitions. In contrast, the behavior of men remained largely unchanged. Focal random selection closes the gender gap in competitiveness and can substantially enlarge the pool of high-performing women who apply for top jobs.