What motivates people to review articles?
A survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing.
Send us a link
A survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing.
Evidence from 34 OECD countries.
Writing and reviewing journal articles is part of the core business of a scientist. But it’s not an efficient way to communicate research results.
This dataset contains projects funded by the EU under the H2020. Grant information is provided for each project, including reference, acronym, objective, title, total cost, EC contribution, start date, end date, duration, Call Id, Topic, Funding Scheme, legal basis.
If you are a scientists sharing our concerns you can add your name in the support form on the right.
Olivier Voinnet, a researcher at ETH in Zurich is retracting a 2004 paper in The Plant Cell, according to the journal's publisher.
Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer scientist whose papers often notch hundreds or thousands of citations, has lost a fourth paper, this time a 2009 publication in Cell.
There is a growing number of postdocs and few places in academia for them to go. But change could be on the way.
The Cell paper has been cited 150 times, according to Web of Science, while the Nature paper has been cited 40. The Nature paper has not yet been retracted.
Institutional public access plans for Open Science.
ORCID has been awarded an 18-month, $3 million grant by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to develop the infrastructure and capacity to support international adoption and technical integration of ORCID identifiers.
For half a century, the government funded research. Times are changing.
Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang.
Tech firms can banish sexism without sacrificing the culture that made them successful.
Divertion of Horizon cash to investment fund will boost financial 'firepower', says Carlos Moedas.
Advertising science as a driver of economic growth is a long‐term losing strategy.
The same organisations that make it difficult to get a grant can be ridiculously laid back about how their money is spent once they have signed it over.
A policy change that could discourage UK government scientists from talking to the media is a backwards step. All researchers need to speak up to put science on the political agenda.
The case of the human-computer interaction community.
Online survey to explore the culture of research in the UK and its effect on ethical conduct in science and the quality of research.
Consumer-oriented websites allow researchers to compare the merits of scientific journals and review their publishing experiences..
Every cutting-edge science by definition has to be DIY. The super-resolution microscopes for which this year’s Nobel was awarded couldn’t be bought in a store: Betzig, Hell, Moerner and colleagues had to build them themselves.
An editor of Nature Publishing Group has resigned in a very public protest the recent decision to allow authors to pay money to expedite peer review of their submitted papers.
Over 20 European Universities (LERU) signed the DORA Declaration on Research Assessment.
World University Rankings analysis reveals the biggest climbers under 50 years of age.
THE analysis reveals progress in closing gap, but female academics still earn nearly £6K less than men.
Publications don't have to be successful immediately. This is shown by an article of Albert Einstein and colleagues that gained importance 85 years after having been published. By Anton Zeilinger.
"Peer review is mortally sick" according to Vitek Tracz.