Send us a link
Scientific papers typically have a finite lifetime. Previous studies pointed out the existence of a few blatant exceptions: papers whose relevance has not been recognized for decades, but then suddenly become highly influential and cited. This study investigates how common Sleeping Beauties are in science.
16.4% of Swiss publications were in the world’s top 10% between 2007 to 2009.
Of top 200 institutions in the world, only one in seven has a female leader, research shows.
JournalGuide brings all sources of journal data together in one place to give authors a simple way to choose the best journal for their research.
This glossary is designed to to be a resource to help inform people about the culture of ‘open scholarship’.
This list recounts some prominent retractions that have occurred since 1980.
On June 5 and 6, 2015, Opendata.ch invites researchers and experts, designers, developers, journalists and all people who would like to embrace experimentation with data to participate in our hackdays in Zurich and Lausanne.
Facing pressure from E.U. parliamentarians and scientists, the European Commission agreed to spare the ERC from budget cuts.
On November 14-16, 2015 in Brussels, OpenCon 2015 will feature leading speakers from across the Open Access, Open Education, and Open Data movements.
Researchers need freedom and the flexibility that leads to serendipity, and they should be encouraged to take risks even if it leads to failure.
Initiative trying to validate 50 cancer papers finds difficulty in accessing original study data.
Oxford University has picked its next leader — and for the first time in 785 years, it will be led by a woman: Louise Richardson.
Academics at Newcastle University have been matched with members of the public as pen pals.
There is an urgent need to reverse the decline in research funding, and a lot to discuss about how decisions are made. But setting up a death match between Big Science and the rest is not the way to go.
Cheating in scientific and academic papers is a longstanding problem, but it is hard to read recent headlines and not conclude that it has gotten worse.
The data transparency revolution is gathering pace. Last month, the WHO and the Nordic Trial Alliance released important declarations about clinical trial transparency.
Enough with the long author lists - we are running out of space.
As science money is increasingly awarded to a small number of expensive projects, some academics argue that a new funding system is needed.
Chief scientific adviser Sir Mark Walport posits a future in which papers are revised as research matures, supplanting 'outmoded' publishing practices.
by Michael Eisen, co-Founder of PLoS
Yoshitaka Fujii falsified 183 papers before statistics exposed him.
The aim is to specify a standard by which we can say that a scientific study has been conducted in accordance with open-science principles and provide visual icons to allow advertising of such good behaviours.
The paper proposes how to achieve widespread, uniform human and machine accessibility of deposited data, in support of significantly improved verification, validation, reproducibility and re-use of scholarly/scientific data.
The report seeks to provide a comprehensive national framework for good research conduct and its governance.
Movement to publicly record peer-reviewing activity gains momentum.
Switzerland’s higher education system has been ranked 2nd in the 2015 global ratings done by Universitas 21. One aspect where it stood out: international outlook. However this is the area under threat after an anti-immigration vote last year.
The ETH Zurich announced it was investigating one of its professors following accusations of publication fraud. Academic misconduct is nothing new, but the Swiss have only recently taken a coherent approach to investigating it.
Just a fraction of universities in the United Kingdom have made public the extent of their investigations into research misconduct, a survey has found - even though all have been told that they should do so.
Republicans in the House of Representatives seek to reshape research agenda.
eLife has partnered with Publons to help reviewers receive recognition for their work.
