opinion articles
Send us a link
Last week saw the publication of the latest world university rankings. But until the purveyors of these league tables address the uncertainties in their data, no-one knows where they really stand. Opinion piece by Stephen Curry.
The cancer researcher reflects on the 2016 election, his experience as a political adviser, and the difficulties of communicating how science works.
Postdoc positions in industry can teach people skills that they would not learn in academia.
Two and a half years ago now, a narrow majority of the Swiss electorate approved the so-called popular 'Stop Mass Immigration' initiative or MEI proposed by the Swiss People’s Party or SVP...
The peer-review system, despite its flaws, is a central component of the publication process. However, relatively little guidance is provided for early-career scientists on 2 important aspects of peer review:
The solution to science's replication crisis is a new ecosystem in which scientists sell what they learn from their research.
Citation metrics are very influential and their normalization is a contentious issue. Each normalization approach has advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper use of these metrics.
With the right investment, an open source drug discovery system might compete with the traditional pharmaceutical industry to deliver the drugs we need.
A modest developmental biology paper prompts breathless claims of egg-free embryos
Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat.
Ask people what’s wrong in American higher education, and you’ll hear about grade inflation.
It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.
When you pay for something, you expect to receive it. Whether a physical good or a service, there is the rightful expectation that you will receive something in exchange for your money. The same should be true for scientific research.
Eight scientists share the secrets of being a successful principal investigator
One day in August 2015, the Princeton University neuroscientist Yael Niv saw an email notice of a conference on deep brain stimulation, a hot topic in treatment for depression and other mental disorders. Dr. Niv noticed that none of the 21 scientists scheduled to speak were women.This was not the first time Dr. Niv had lamented a skewed lineup.
Robert Kiley, our Head of Digital Services, explains why Wellcome has introduced a set of publisher requirements for open access publications.
Academics are getting out of touch with the rest of society. This helps explains the sorry state of our public discourse on science.
Many researchers are positive about the new, burgeoning science culture, but they still hesitate to enter into an open exchange of knowledge. There are many reasons why – such as a lack of knowledge about data management and the fear of intellectual property theft.
How do we ensure the effective role of science in public policy-making? This well-worn, long-standing question reflects the fact that the answer is not simple. Later this month in Brussels, scientists and policy-makers will convene at the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Forum to consider the most promising ways forward.
In this Perspective, Thomas C. Südhof describes some of the current challenges to the peer review system that have endangered public acceptance of science and discusses possible avenues to addressing these challenges.
The giant journal company said it was merely protecting its own proprietary system. But a wave of critics on social media said they were suspicious of its motives.
Many people see privately funded research as a threat to academic independence, but this is an incomplete view. Experts with close connections to politics and business are a logical consequence of a knowledge-based society. It is time for a fundamental debate on responsible research partnerships.
Peer review is a thankless task, but journals have been experimenting with accolades and cash incentives for scientists who serve as peer reviewers.
A time traveler from 1915 arriving in 1965 would have been astonished by the scientific theories and engineering technologies invented during that half century. One can only speculate, but it seems likely that few of the major advances that emerged during those 50 years were even remotely foreseeable in 1915.
In an editorial in the 26 August issue of the journal Science, Jeremy Berg, the journal's 20th editor-in-chief, examines the importance of funding science steadily, with predictable budget cycles that allow science-funding agencies to do long-term planning that research projects typically require.
There is no perfect metric. There is no number or score which fully encapsulates the value, impact, or importance of a piece of research. While this statement might appear obvious, research evaluation and measurement are a fact of life for the scientific research community.
To make replication studies more useful, researchers must make more of them, funders must encourage them and journals must publish them.
New reviewers are anxious to get some formal coaching before they start commenting the work of fellow academics.
