Send us a link
Duplicated images plague research papers
A new analysis finds that 3.8 percent of scientific studies have images duplicated from another paper.
Science Magazine’s Defense of Expensive Journals
Science magazine just published a great piece on the utility of Sci-Hub. Unfortunately, its defense of its own business model is flawed.
Troubled geophysics institute gets a new boss
Carlo Doglioni aims to concentrate on science, leaving trial and corruption allegations behind
Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?
In 2012, network scientist and data theorist Samuel Arbesman published a disturbing thesis: What we think of as established knowledge decays over time.
Anticipating artificial intelligence
Concerns over AI are not simply fear-mongering. Progress in the field will affect society profoundly, and it is important to make sure that the changes benefit everyone.
Is most published research really false?
A discussion of the common underpinning problems with the scientific and data analytic practices and point to tools and behaviors that can be implemented to reduce the problems with published scientific results.
Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone
An exclusive look at data from the controversial web site Sci-Hub reveals that the whole world, both poor and rich, is reading pirated research papers.
The things you hate most about submitting manuscripts
13 tips to make submitting your paper a breeze
When privacy-bound research pays for open science
A new open science business model charges those who want to keep information private to subsidise those who share it
The Lego approach to scientific publishing
In this interview with EuroScientist, Lawrence Rajendran explains why he created Matters, to change the way we communicate science.
Are the disruptions of uberisation a bane or boon for science?
For every characteristic of uberisation, there is a parallel in the world of research. This raises the question of whether research was "uberised" before Uber even existed?
Merck Wants Its Money Back if University Research Is Wrong
Merck Wants Its Money Back if University Research Is Wrong
If academic discoveries turn out to be wrong, one drug company wants its money back.
How can academia kick its addiction to the impact factor?
The impact factor is academia’s worst nightmare. So much has been written about its flaws, both in calculation and application, that there is little point in reiterating the same tired points here …
If scientists want to influence policymaking, they need to understand it
Turning scientific evidence into policy exposes a gulf between how scientists think and how policymakers work. Here’s what scientists need to know
OpenCon 2016
Empowering the Next Generation to Advance Open Access, Open Education and Open Data.
Peer review appears to be a poor predictor of impact
Peer review appears to be a poor predictor of impact
David Kent breaks down an eLife article that suggests peer review scores cannot distinguish very good grants from excellent grants. In fact, at a certain point in the process, it is pretty much a random lottery.
Australia’s national labs learn details of staff cuts
Climate scientists skeptical of plans for new center
Call for papers: publish your confirmatory and non-confirmatory results
Call for papers: publish your confirmatory and non-confirmatory results
In response to rising concerns about irreproducible science and the lack of somewhere to openly discuss these issues, we recently launched the Preclinical Reproducibility and Robustness Channel.
Supporting Europe's innovators through open innovation
Supporting Europe's innovators through open innovation - 2014-2019