Judea Pearl, a pioneering figure in artificial intelligence, argues that AI has been stuck in a decades-long rut. His prescription for progress? Teach machines.

Far from driving scientific progress, competition is actually taking a negative toll on research output. We need a new model of working that encourages transparency, openness and may improve research standards.

Ever since Google fired James Damore for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace," those of us working in tech have been trying to figure out what we can and cannot say on the subject of diversity.

Latin American researchers have a specific social commitment to ensure that their work is accessible and contributing to the good of their communities, says Victoriano Colodrón.

Science needs to reckon with the #MeToo moment, and it needs to do so immediately, says a new report from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences.

Stop saying that publication metrics don’t matter, and tell early-career researchers what does, says John Tregoning.

Sarah Quarmby takes a look inside a knowledge broker organisation, the Wales Centre for Public Policy, to see how its day-to-day workings tally with the body of knowledge about evidence use in policymaking.

Mobilising value from science and technology needs help from thinkers, designers, makers, policymakers, and enablers - and this expertise often sits in the humanities, arts and social sciences domain.

Students need to be given real and significant things from the world to think with and about if teachers want to influence how they do that thinking.

Funding is harder to find in general, and the current approach favors low-risk research and proposals by older scientists and white men.

From a failed coup in Turkey, to prolonged financial crises in Greece and Spain, researchers in the region are struggling to keep up. 

Google Scholar presents a broader view of the academic world because it has brought to light a great number of sources that were not previously visible.

Economist and adviser Mariana Mazzucato says the European Commission should 'welcome risk and uncertainty' with new research missions, but the desired outcome must be clear.

Tolerating bad behavior means wasted tax dollars, disrupted scientific advancements and weakened innovation.

After being given the green light by research ministers earlier this year, an ambitious initiative to enable Europe’s 1.7 million researchers to share data and research tools is now on course to be launched before the end of the year. But what should the next steps be?

Early-career researchers can learn about peer review by discussing preprints at journal clubs and sending feedback to the authors.

Publishing exclusively in English can cause the deterioration of a culture’s local knowledge, brain drain, and hinder the emergence of important research. There are scholarly journals from the Global South who won’t flip to open access because they know they will be immediately labelled as predatory. Fixing these problems will require reconsidering how we talk about predatory publishers, no longer recommending blacklists, and using databases beyond Scopus and Web of Science.

An extensive, non-exhaustive list of current proposals aimed at aligning assessments of scientists with desirable scientific behaviours.

And the key to its popularity is the online repository and social network, GitHub.

As the president prepares for nuclear talks, he lacks a close adviser with nuclear expertise. It’s one example of a marginalization of science in shaping federal policy.

New research predicts that audits would reduce the number of false positive results from 30.2 per 100 papers to 12.3 per 100.

Scare stories in the media warn that biohackers in community labs are working underground to create the next global apocalypse. In truth, these labs are all about science outreach and education.

Wrong question; instead of scapegoating individual researchers, we should blame the centers of power, including corporations and political leaders.

The assumption that the publication of an article in a high-impact factor, indexed journal somehow adds value to international science is a collective illusion - one that is unfortunately shared by funding agencies, institutions and researchers. This illusion - which serves as an excuse to delegate the evaluation of science to for-profit companies and anonymous reviewers for the sake of false objectivity - costs taxpayers dearly.

Given the dearth of women receiving the top science prizes, it's time for the Nobel Committee to revamp how it awards great work.

By tying rewards to metrics, organisations risk incentivising gaming and encouraging behaviours that may be at odds with their larger purpose. The culture of short-termism engendered by metrics also impedes innovation and stifles the entrepreneurial element of human nature.

Most papers fail to report many aspects of the experiment and analysis that we may not with advantage omit - things that are crucial to understanding the result and its limitations and to repeating the work.  Instead of arguing about whether results hold up, we should strive to provide enough information for others to repeat the experiments.

If the publishers of scientific journals everywhere enforced a universal code of ethics - if you violate the code, you cannot publish your scientific work - systematic bullies and harassers would be eliminated from their fields.

Despite the negative connotations they incite, they have exactly the kind of insight and persistence that higher ed needs today, argue M. Soledad Caballero and Aimee Knupsky.

Objections to the Creative Commons attribution licence are straw men raised by parties who want open access to be as closed as possible, warns John Wilbanks.