Send us a link
If we continue on the current path of adding ever tighter controls and conformities to research without understanding their effects on the impact and quality of that research, then we will likely be wasting money.
Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing. To save the enterprise, scientists must come out of the lab and into the real world.
Responding to reviewer reports is a key part of publishing academic work in peer reviewed journals. But if you’ve received mixed reviews of a paper or are publishing for the first time, where do you start?
“Isn't this just a glorified postdoc position? Won't taking this offer hurt my chances of landing a tenure-track professor position?”
If we want to achieve the ambitions set out by the United Nations for global health and development by 2030, we need to bring two worlds closer together through a new concept—precision public health.
The American Sociological Association is starting a conversation to include “public communication” -- work often largely ignored -- in the assessment of a scholar’s contributions. Why does it matter?
Why government leaders should publish the reams of data they’re collecting — and why citizens everywhere should push them to do so.
Your definitive guide to using social media as an academic
UC Davis and CDL Investigation of the Institutional Costs of Gold Open Access
Openly discussing the history of science, where is has gone wrong, and the incredible efforts individual scientists go to uncover fraud should inspire confidence in its self-correcting nature.
The U.S. presidential election shows how far the political conversation has degenerated from the nation's founding principles of truth and evidence.
New evidence in the battle to control a gene-editing technology that is worth billions.
Without open data, a scientific paper is little more than a statement that, in the author’s opinion, some evidence supports a certain set of claims.
The zoo of bacteria and viruses within each lab animal may be confounding experiments.
Authors of systematic review articles sometimes overlook misconduct and conflicts of interest present in the research they are analyzing, according to a recent study published in BMJ Open.
Richard Morey on thinking about evidence, selling dog food, and how individual scientist can deal with the crisis in the social sciences.
A system of academic endorsement based on blockchain technology would be decoupled from the publication process, which would allow expeditious appraisal of all kinds of scientific output in a transparent manner without relying on any central authority.
Covering sexism and sexual harassment in the sciences and academia may not yet be a full-fledged beat for journalists, but it's getting there.
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus praise the growing scrutiny of scientific publications.
On The Natural Selection of Bad Science.
Jean-Paul Chretien and colleagues argue that recent Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks highlight the importance of data sharing in scientific research.
Sanjay Srivastava’s assessment of the state of psychology mixes a certain four-letter word and gallows humor with a desire to raise awareness of important research issues in his field.
A figshare case study of Micah Vandegrift's Digital Humanities research.
New 2016 Top 500 world university rankings conducted by CWCU of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Academic Ranking of World Universities).
Nonscientists should take part in discussions about research priorities and more.
Not just a competition but a resource that will continue to be useful now and in the future as we tackle improving reproducibility in the sciences.
There needs to be a transparent and openly recorded submission and review process.
A spirit of collective enterprise in scientific research is being replaced by a rush to assign precise credit for who did what.
Encourage girls to explore scientific career paths.
