Send us a link
Publication bias, in which positive results are preferentially reported by authors and published by journals, can restrict the visibility of evidence against false claims and allow such claims to be canonized inappropriately as facts.
Articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often.
Young scientists angry at budget cuts say they have been denied permanent jobs.
Groups of authors citing each other is becoming an issue in scientific publishing. With a new approach, researchers discuss how to identify the problem.
Gary McDowell, Misty Heggeness and colleagues present census data showing how the biomedical workforce is fundamentally different to those of past generations – academia should study the trends, and adapt.
Health care policy, space and evolution led the way.
Evidence from Web of Science showing that English is increasingly being used as the dominating language from natural sciences and social sciences to arts and humanities.
One of the watchwords of politics in 2016 was the epidemic of “fake news” — a catch-all term encompassing propaganda, misinformation, disinformation and hoaxing — impinging on the presidential campaign. But let’s not overlook its spread in the spheres of science and medicine.
Neuroskeptic« No Need To Worry About False Positives in fMRI?What Happens to Rejected Papers?By Neuroskeptic | January 3, 2017 2:43 pm32The pain of rejection is one that every scientist has felt: but what happens to papers after they’re declined by a journal?In a new study, researchers Earnshaw et al. traced the fate of almost 1,000 manuscripts which had been submitted to and rejected by ear, nose and throat journal Clinical Otolaryngology between 2011 to 2013.
Allow me to pull back the curtain. Scientist #1 is writing a paper and wants to add a reference in the introduction.
There's quite a paradox when it comes to our health data. Most of us still cannot readily look at it, but there’s been an epidemic of cybercriminals and thieves hacking and stealing this most personal information. By Eric Topol.
How administrative procedure and law failed a scientist accused of research misconduct.
As I was thinking about casting my vote for the Open Science Prize, I realized that I would in fact need a rubric for choosing. I was concerned that the public vote would tend towards popularity, familiarity, or bling, rather than the quality of the open science. But what does it mean to be “quality open science?” What should be the most important criteria?
With corporate funding of research, “there’s no scientist who comes out of this unscathed.”
Analysis casts doubt on fears that ‘publish or perish’ culture undermines quality.
Fake news and "post-truth," which may have played a role in the 2016 elections, are also problems in science publishing and science journalism.
Eight ways labs benefit from the popular workplace messaging tool.
Mr. Beall’s website, which identifies “predatory open access scholarly publishers” that masquerade as scholarly journals, has grown to 923 publishers from 18 in 2011.
Reading popular science articles causes non-scientists to overrate their expertise, research finds
These scientists made important contributions to physics, biology, astronomy and more
Universal Green OA Is the Most Efficient and Fairest of Science Publishing Strategies.
There’s no shortage of misinformation in the world — particularly around health and science topics.
