Send us a link
Weâre interested in hearing about the challenges faced by early-career scientists worldwide, especially if you've recently started your own lab, are struggling to maintain a lab, or have left research. We want to hear your stories. Your answers may feature in articles published by Nature's news team.
How do we ensure the effective role of science in public policy-making? This well-worn, long-standing question reflects the fact that the answer is not simple. Later this month in Brussels, scientists and policy-makers will convene at the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Forum to consider the most promising ways forward.
This week, the first of 1500 researchers and support staff begin moving into the largest biomedical research building in Europe, the £650 million Francis Crick Institute in London.
Many researchers are positive about the new, burgeoning science culture, but they still hesitate to enter into an open exchange of knowledge. There are many reasons why – such as a lack of knowledge about data management and the fear of intellectual property theft.
The giant journal company said it was merely protecting its own proprietary system. But a wave of critics on social media said they were suspicious of its motives.
Welfare state expert Peter Taylor-Gooby cheerfully admits his research has had no real-world influence – but hopes a book might.
One of the pioneers in developing fluorescent proteins for biological studies was 64 years old.
It is useful to consider the trajectory of both scientific and literary publishing on the grid-group plane defined by Mary Douglas which arranges attitudes along two axes: one ranging from the hierarchical to the egalitarian, and the other spanning individualistic to communitarian. I would contend that, in both cases, there has been a move from the hierarchical/communitarian quadrant towards the egalitarian/individualistic zone.
A few hours ago, 50 months after Elsevier submitted a patent application for an “Online peer review system and method” the patent was awarded to the company.
Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat.
We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.
In France, the final text of a new law on Open Access has been adopted on June 29, 2016.
Science has become a lot bigger and faster. Join us now to make it better @ the congress on 26 / 27 january 2017, Berne.
Peer review is a thankless task, but journals have been experimenting with accolades and cash incentives for scientists who serve as peer reviewers.
Research creates its own problems. Articles may be withdrawn because of irregularities, results can be impossible to reproduce, methods are often non-standardised, and publications may not be accessible. The search is now on for solutions.
A contribution to the open innovation, open science, open to the world agenda 2016.
In an editorial in the 26 August issue of the journal Science, Jeremy Berg, the journal's 20th editor-in-chief, examines the importance of funding science steadily, with predictable budget cycles that allow science-funding agencies to do long-term planning that research projects typically require.
The new director of the federal office that guards against misconduct in U.S.-funded biomedical research is aiming to shake things up—but is also encountering rough waters. Kathryn Partin, who took the helm of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in December 2015, has launched a top-to-bottom review of the office, which has been criticized for moving too slowly and meting out sanctions that lack teeth.
In this Perspective, Thomas C. Südhof describes some of the current challenges to the peer review system that have endangered public acceptance of science and discusses possible avenues to addressing these challenges.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's free, not-for-profit preprint service bioRxiv has received generous additional financial support.
The replication crisis in science is largely attributable to a mismatch in our expectations of how often findings should replicate and how difficult it is to actually discover true findings in certain fields.
There is no perfect metric. There is no number or score which fully encapsulates the value, impact, or importance of a piece of research. While this statement might appear obvious, research evaluation and measurement are a fact of life for the scientific research community.
Many people see privately funded research as a threat to academic independence, but this is an incomplete view. Experts with close connections to politics and business are a logical consequence of a knowledge-based society. It is time for a fundamental debate on responsible research partnerships.
