US funding agencies are turning to a Silicon Valley entrepreneur to focus fledgling biomedical companies on success — even when that means making a scientific course correction.

Europe's research commissioner Carlos Moedas on funding models, diplomacy and scientific advice.

Much of our contemporary approach to publishing research began with the launch of that journal, but what does the future hold?

"Peer review is mortally sick" according to Vitek Tracz.

Behind the headlines are exciting initiatives that have the potential to, not just improve peer review, but optimize it for 21st century scholarship.

As the world warms and technology improves, researchers and institutions should look at their carbon footprints and question whether they really need to travel to academic conferences.

Things are improving for women working in most STEM-based fields, although there are some notable exceptions.

Free from bureaucracy, independent science labs offer a flexibility that can't be matched by universities.

When people talk about the flaws in the scientific process, they often raise the problem of peer review. Right now, when a researcher submits an article for publication in a journal, it's sent off to his or her peers for constructive criticism or even rejection.

The professionally trained scientists who make decisions on biology papers at the big journals with the big journal impact factors have significantly less scientific experience and far weaker publication records than the editors of lower journal impact factor biology journals.

Reasons for removing time-bound criteria from MRC fellowship applications to help give people the time they need.

Livre blanc sur la visibilité de la recherche française : enquête et recommandations.

This paper presents three case studies describing the use of altmetrics across three research-intensive higher education institutions in the UK and USA.

The exponential growth in the number of scientific papers makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of all the publications relevant to their work. Consequently, the attention that can be devoted to individual papers, measured by their citation counts, is bound to decay rapidly.

International graduate students and their decisions to stay or leave the U.S. upon graduation.

A systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users develops a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher’s point of view.

A survey of ~ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences asks what expectations “data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication.

This article investigates the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to carry out case studies about national innovation capacities in the case of given countries..

A Survey of Researchers Submitting to Data Repositories

The Unionization of Postdoctoral Workers at the University of California.

[24]Altmetrics Work?

The leaky pipeline metaphor partially explains historical gender differences in the U.S., but no longer describes current gender differences in the bachelor’s to Ph.D. transition in STEM.

The paper develops a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community.

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.

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.

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.

A simulation of grant submission and peer review shows that small biases in evaluation can have big consequences.

Quality control in science journals is evolving, with a code of ethics in hot pursuit.

An analysis linking the number of researchers in a lab to productivity spurs online debate.

The PDF makes reading science research even more difficult and prevents a two-way conversation from taking place.