Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals
Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals
Observational study from 1994 to 2014
Send us a link
How many replication studies are enough?
Researchers on social media ask at what point replication efforts go from useful to wasteful.
The manuscript-editing marketplace
A peer-to-peer website aims to disrupt the author-services industry.
Close to the madding crowd
To engage the public in your work, whilst also solving that all-important research funding problem?
Utilization of the Crowd for Medical Research
Recently, some have begun to explore the utilization of the crowd for various purposes in medical research, including fundraising as well as crowdsourcing for intellectual analyses and insights.
Benefits and Implications of EU and Global Collaboration by UK Universities - Digital Science
Benefits and Implications of EU and Global Collaboration by UK Universities - Digital Science
A report on international academic collaboration across the UK research base and on the implications of EU and global collaboration for universities, research assessment and the economy.
Italian scientists protest ’serious neglect’ of research
Researchers gathered at Sapienza University of Rome last week to discuss the cuts in Italy's research budget.
Women under-represented in world’s science academies
Fewer than half of academies have policies in place to boost gender equality in membership.
A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology
We revisit the results of the recent Reproducibility Project: Psychology by the Open Science Collaboration. We compute Bayes factors—a quantity that can be used to express comparative evidence for an hypothesis but also for the null hypothesis—for a large subset ( N = 72) of the original papers and their corresponding replication attempts. In our computation, we take into account the likely scenario that publication bias had distorted the originally published results. Overall, 75% of studies gave qualitatively similar results in terms of the amount of evidence provided. However, the evidence was often weak (i.e., Bayes factor < 10). The majority of the studies (64%) did not provide strong evidence for either the null or the alternative hypothesis in either the original or the replication, and no replication attempts provided strong evidence in favor of the null. In all cases where the original paper provided strong evidence but the replication did not (15%), the sample size in the replication was smaller than the original. Where the replication provided strong evidence but the original did not (10%), the replication sample size was larger. We conclude that the apparent failure of the Reproducibility Project to replicate many target effects can be adequately explained by overestimation of effect sizes (or overestimation of evidence against the null hypothesis) due to small sample sizes and publication bias in the psychological literature. We further conclude that traditional sample sizes are insufficient and that a more widespread adoption of Bayesian methods is desirable.
A world where everyone has a robot: why 2040 could blow your mind
Technological change is accelerating today at an unprecedented speed and could create a world we can barely begin to imagine.
Increasing access to the results of federally funded science
Three years after the OSTP directive, policies to make data and publications resulting from federally funded research publicly accessible are becoming the norm.
Science just wants to be free
On how scientific publishers are struggling to maintain their stranglehold over scientists.
The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world
The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world
What they fund and how they distribute their funds.
Mapping the hinterland: data issues in open science
This research investigates the relationship between open science and public engagement.
Enhancing Research Reproducibility
Recommendations from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
The relative impact factor of glamour journals is 2.166
Tweets of articles from Cell, Nature and Science journals all resulted in 2.166 more times clicks on the journal title rather than the anonymized links.
Federal Council appoints Martin Vetterli President of EPFL
The President of the Research Council of the SNSF will take office on 1 January 2017, succeeding Patrick Aebischer, who has had 16 years at the helm of EPFL.
New research boss wants to reward fresh talent
Massimo Inguscio will take over from engineer Luigi Nicolais as president of Italy's largest research organization.
NIH to review its policies on all nonhuman primate research
The NIH will convene a workshop this summer to review the ethical policies and procedures surrounding work on monkeys, baboons, and related animals.
NSF launches long-awaited diversity initiative
The NSF announced its intention to hand out small grants later this year to dozens of institutions to test novel ways of broadening participation in science and engineering.
What makes elite academics move?
Children’s ages, peer environment quality, and recent funding affect decisions to move to new institutions, a new study suggests
Academics fall short in reporting results of clinical trials
Only one-third of trials at US medical centres are reported within two years of completion.
Accord
Accord
Science International has developed an international accord on the values of open data in the emerging scientific culture of big data. Endorsements are welcome until 1 May 2016.
Be part of the European Commission Expert Group on Open Science!
Be part of the European Commission Expert Group on Open Science! - Digital Economy & Society
Safety first
Safety first
It is worrying that US government departments are unable to divulge basic data on research projects involving human subjects. Such data should be publicly available to ensure volunteers’ safety.
Researchers: speak up now or risk being muzzled on government policy
New rules could stop state-funded scientists advising ministers and make it easier for companies and campaign groups to sway government decisions
"Is There a Future for In-Depth Science Journalism?"
Video, podcast and summary.
×