Celebrating Women and Girls in Science
February 11 was the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. This year, it was marked by a joint statement celebrating women’s achievements in science from Europe’s eight EIROforum laboratories.
Send us a link
We Have A Long Way To Go Before Women Are Equally Represented In The Sciences
February 11th was International Women and Girls in Science Day, but despite the best efforts of many parents, teachers, and policymakers over the last two decades the numbers are still dismal.
EUA Releases Preview of 2nd Big Deals Survey Report
EUA has published a preview of the results of the latest edition of its Big Deals survey.
The Women Who Contributed to Science but Were Buried in Footnotes
In a new study, researchers uncovered female programmers who made important but unrecognized contributions to genetics.
Taking Stock of the Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance
With thousand of pages of feedback on the Plans S implementation guidance, what themes emerged that might guide next steps?
Overdue: a US Advisory Board for Research Integrity
Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues.
Accurately Analysing Diversity in Research - Digital Science
This article by Dr Hélène Draux, Research Data Scientist at Digital Science, and Dr Suze Kundu, Head of Public Engagement at Digital Science takes note of 11th February, the annual International Day of Women and Girls in Science.
International Day of Women and Girls in Science
On 11 February, the United Nations, partners worldwide, women and girls will mark the International Day of Women and Girls in Science.
PLOS Provides Feedback on the Implementation of Plan S | The Official PLOS Blog
PLOS Provides Feedback on the Implementation of Plan S | The Official PLOS Blog
PLOS welcomes Plan S as a 'decisive step towards the realisation of full open access'1, in particular the push it provides towards realization of a research process based on the principles of open science.
The Information System Supporting Research
Access to expert commentary and insight - and an invitation to co-create the system of the future
Where Do Our Graduates Go? A Toolkit for Retrospective and Ongoing Career Outcomes Data Collection for Biomedical PhD Students and Postdoctoral Scholars
Where Do Our Graduates Go? A Toolkit for Retrospective and Ongoing Career Outcomes Data Collection for Biomedical PhD Students and Postdoctoral Scholars
Universities are at long last undertaking efforts to collect and disseminate information about student career outcomes, after decades of calls to action. Organizations such as Rescuing Biomedical Research and Future of Research brought this issue to the forefront of graduate education, and the second Future of Biomedical Graduate and Postdoctoral Training conference (FOBGAPT2) featured the collection of career outcomes data in its final recommendations, published in this journal (Hitchcock et al., 2017). More recently, 26 institutions assembled as the Coalition for Next Generation Life Science, committing to ongoing collection and dissemination of career data for both graduate and postdoc alumni. A few individual institutions have shared snapshots of the data in peer-reviewed publications (Mathur et al., 2018; Silva, des Jarlais, Lindstaedt, Rotman, Watkins, 2016) and on websites. As more and more institutions take up this call to action, they will now be looking for tools, protocols, and best practices for ongoing career outcomes data collection, management, and dissemination. Here, we describe UCSF's experiences in conducting a retrospective study, and in institutionalizing a methodology for annual data collection and dissemination. We describe and share all tools we have developed, and we provide calculations of the time and resources required to accomplish both retrospective studies and annual updates. We also include broader recommendations for implementation at your own institutions, increasing the feasibility of this endeavor.
Call for Retraction of 400 Scientific Papers Amid Fears Organs Came from Chinese Prisoners
Call for Retraction of 400 Scientific Papers Amid Fears Organs Came from Chinese Prisoners
Study finds failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards.
The Game is Changing: How Two Years of Trump Has Energized the Science Community
The Game is Changing: How Two Years of Trump Has Energized the Science Community
Two years into the Trump administration the damage done to science is significant but it would have been far worse without thousands of scientists and their allies calling out attacks on science and detailing the consequences of these attacks for public health and safety.
Bias Against Female Scientists Revealed in Study of Canadian Grants Program
Female scientists are less likely to win research dollars from the federal government's grant agency (CIHR), when the grant application is reviewed based on the scientist leading the project, rather than the proposal.
FOSTER/OpenAIRE Moderated Course on Open Access to Publications in Horizon 2020
FOSTER/OpenAIRE Moderated Course on Open Access to Publications in Horizon 2020
Are you participating in a H2020 funded project? Would you like to know more on how to comply with the H2020 Open Access mandate? Join in this moderated FOSTER/OpenAIRE Course on Open Access to Publications in Horizon 2020.
ELife Ambassadors: Introducing ECRcentral
The community-curated website aims to connect early-career researchers with funding opportunities, useful resources and each other.
Main Outcomes of NWO/ZonMw Consultation Meeting on Plan S
On the 31th of January NWO and ZonMw organised a consultation meeting as part of the public feedback on the implementation of Plan S. The meeting was very well attended with over 250 people representing all segments of the Dutch research community.
OPERAS Declaration on the Plan S Implementation Guidance
OPERAS, the European research infrastructure dedicated to open scholarly communication in the Social Sciences and Humanities, provides its recommendations to the guidance document on the implementation of Plan S.
Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication
The Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission proposes a vision for the future of scholarly communication. It examines the current system and its main actors and puts forward recommendations.
Scientists Don't Stay for Long in Their Jobs Anymore: Study
Plus, more scientists nowadays spend their entire careers in supporting roles, rather than leading their own research programs.
Swiss Universities Fear EU Science Funding Snub
Swiss universities fear losing out on the European Union's "Horizon Europe" science research funding pot.
The Emotional Toll of Graduate School
Mental health disorders and depression are far more likely for grad students than they are for the average American.
Request for Feedback on Grant Identifier Metadata
We first announced plans to investigate identifiers for grants in 2017 and are almost ready to violate the first rule of grant identifiers which is “they probably should not be called grant identifiers”.
OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance
As a community of 140 organisations who are committed to the advancement of open access publishing and who represent the majority of the of the OA journal output in the DOAJ*, OASPA is of course very supportive of the intentions of Plan S, as we commented previously at the beginning of October.
Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What's at Stake in the Words We Use to Describe New Publishing Paradigms
Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What's at Stake in the Words We Use to Describe New Publishing Paradigms
There is no question that we are facing significant challenges and opportunities as the traditional publishing model begins to falter. How the academy positions itself at this moment will have consequences for years to come.
AHA Expresses Concerns About Potential Impact of Plan S on the Humanities
The AHA fully supports broad access to the resources required to create new knowledge and share it as widely as possible. However, concerns about the principles set out in Plan S have led the AHA to write a letter to Coalition S members regarding the potential for harm to humanities scholarship.
ORCID Survey
To help us better understand and meet the needs of our current and future users, we invite you to complete this survey of what you know about ORCID, whether - and if so, how - you currently use ORCID and your experiences of doing so, what’s working and what isn’t, and more.
×