Anne Glover's science advisor role reinstated
The European Commission has agreed to retain the role of EU Chief Scientific Adviser, despite the departure of Anne Glover.
Send us a link
Dutch universities dig in for long fight over open access
Institutions 'unbending' on fee-free demand as talks with Elsevier resume. Meanwhile, a deal that meets the universities’ requirements was made with Springer.
A one-grant limit: NIH institute puts squeeze on flush investigators
Investigators with substantial, long-term, unrestricted research support may generally hold no more than one NIGMS research grant.
Evaluating your own paper
A few professional scientists have found a sneaky way to cheat their way up the career ladder. They evaluate their own research by pretending to be someone else.
Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year - but can't access many of the results
Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year - but can't access many of the results
The British commentator George Monbiot once compared academic publishers to the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, concluding that the former were more predatory.
What would happen if grant reviews were made public?
Researchers on social media discuss the potential impact of making peer review more transparent.
The not-quite-stated, awful truth
For all but a small percentage of aspiring researchers, doing a postdoc at a university is a lousy idea because it will neither result in an academic job nor otherwise advance one’s career.
The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful
Forcing research to fit the mould of high-impact journals weakens it. Hiring decisions should be based on merit, not impact factor.
Interview with Ivan Oransky
Ivan Oransky is a medical journalist, global editorial director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks and reports on retractions in research journals.
An open science peer review oath
We propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto.
The R-factor: A measure of scientific veracity
We propose to use the R-factor, a metric that indicates whether a report or its conclusions have been verified.
Restore the US lead in biomedical research
How the US position as a global leader in biomedical research is being undermined.
Unravelling the true cost of publishing in open access
Universities must continue to monitor and track the variety of associated spending related to journal publishing and access, argues Lorraine Estelle. Many universities are forecasting that their AP…
The future and funding of science
Holiday discussion about the future of science and how it might one day be funded.
Is grant funding something of a lottery?
Data show scores given to grant applications by external reviewers don't correlate with what actually gets funded.
What constitutes a citable scientific work?
Four conditions that need to be satisfied for a document to be considered a citable piece of scientific work.
Freezing out young scientists
Share of research funding going to young scientists is declining.
Adventures with R
A guide to the popular, free statistics and visualization software that gives scientists control of their own data analysis.
Criteria for Nature Index questioned
How using absolute numbers and journal reputation can yield misleading results.
India's major science funders join open-access push
Two of India's science funding agencies are joining the push to make the results of the research they fund freely available to the public.
$60 million deal between Genentech and 23andMe
A deal being announced today with Genentech points the way for 23andMe to become a sustainable business.
Economic divide taking toll on European science
The Horizon 2020 programme threatens to siphon away the best scientists from southern Europe.
Damaging effects of the current patent system in the US
A patent system that is so broken that almost no patented discoveries ever get used.
Academic journals: the most profitable obsolete technology in history
A large research university will pay between $3-3.5 million a year in academic subscription fees...
Pure, stupid luck
A light-hearted opinion piece about the arbitrariness of academic success.
Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates
How a recent "bad luck" cancer study illustrates failure of science journalism.
A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce
A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce
On the delay in young scientists obtaining NIH grants.
The transformative nature of transparency in research funding
On transparency in the process of grant review.
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping
Evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work.
Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications
On the challenges of crowdfunded science projects.
×