Send us a link
The big consequences of small biases
A simulation of grant submission and peer review shows that small biases in evaluation can have big consequences.
The R-index: A new metric for quantifying contributions of reviewers
The number of contributing reviewers often outnumbers the authors of publications. We propose the R-index as a simple way to quantify scientists' contributions as reviewers.
Persistent Citation of a Paper Six Years after Its Retraction
Scientific articles are retracted infrequently, yet have the potential to influence the scientific literature for years. The objective of this research was to determine the frequency and nature of citations of this retracted paper.
Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks
A quantitative understanding of faculty hiring as a system is lacking. Our study suggests that faculty hiring follows a common and steeply hierarchical structure that reflects profound social inequality.
Collective credit allocation in science [MuDVn3d4SQSYQl1lC44Y_xVubZLal_400x400.jpeg]
Collective credit allocation in science [MuDVn3d4SQSYQl1lC44Y_xVubZLal_400x400.jpeg]
The paper develops a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community.
A little bias in peer review scores can translate into big money, simulation finds
A new computer simulation explores just how sensitive the process might be to bias and randomness. Its answer: very.
NIH proposal to create grant for aging scientists hits a nerve
NIH's proposal-an "emeritus" award that senior scientists would use to pass their work on to younger colleagues and wind down their labs is being blasted in the blogosphere.
Is the professor bossy or brilliant?
Male professors are brilliant, awesome and knowledgeable. Women are bossy and annoying, and beautiful or ugly. These are a few of the results from a new interactive chart that was gaining notice on social media.
Human Brain Project to be rethought
The European Commission says its outside experts have agreed there must be more integration, better infrastructure and an emphasis on concrete results.
The benefits of negative science
A new JAMA study found the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is silent on matters of scientific misconduct and fraud.
Why scholarly communication can't be free
The ‘no costs’ fallacy is based on the idea that for a commercial publisher, manuscripts are free, peer review is free, editorial boards are free, and electronic dissemination is free.
It's time to ditch the PDF
The PDF makes reading science research even more difficult and prevents a two-way conversation from taking place.
Bigger is not better when it comes to lab size
An analysis linking the number of researchers in a lab to productivity spurs online debate.
Oath market
Quality control in science journals is evolving, with a code of ethics in hot pursuit.
Reproducible research can still be wrong
Reproducibility alone is insufficient to address the replication crisis because even a reproducible analysis can suffer from many problems that threaten the validity and useful interpretation of the results.
Fundref
FundRef provides a standard way to report funding sources for published scholarly research.
A network boost
How scientists can use Twitter to expand their social contacts and find jobs.
Race, Inequality and Diversity in the Academy
Race inequality remains prevalent throughout all areas of higher education, including staffing, admissions and employment, according to a report released by leading UK race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust.
Public and scientists’ views on science and society
Both the public and scientists value the contributions ofscience, but there are large differences in how each perceives science issues.
Twenty-three questions on the lives of scientists
The website is called The Scientific 23 because each interviewee was asked 23 questions.
How did science come to speak only English?
If you can read this sentence, you can talk with a scientist. Well, maybe not about the details of her research, but at least you would share a common language.
Obama budget seeks big boost for science
White House plan would increase research and development funding but faces rough road in Congress.
There's a gap between what the public thinks and what scientists know
Surveys find broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn’t mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw.
Going for True Gold
Why the Norwegian Research Council is taking a stand against hybrid Open Access journals.
Anne Glover on Brussels
Anne Glover, former chief scientific adviser to the president of the European commission, gives a frank account of the highs and lows of her three years in Brussels.
Big data studies come with replication challenges
The truth can be hard to find with millions of data points and lots of room for error.
Is 'academic citizenship' under strain?
A wide range of essential under-the-radar tasks sustain academic culture, but who will perform them in an increasingly careerist academy?
Tackling unethical authorship deals on scientific publications
The research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. But how do we know that all authors listed on a publication have actually been involved in the research?
Research groups: how big should they be?
This study investigates the relationship between research group size and productivity in the life sciences in the UK and shows that the number of publications increases linearly with group size, but that the slope is modest relative to the intercept, and that the relationship explains little of the variance in productivity.