[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.

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.

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?

A wide range of essential under-the-radar tasks sustain academic culture, but who will perform them in an increasingly careerist academy?

The truth can be hard to find with millions of data points and lots of room for error.

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.

In the 1970s, radical scientists thought they could change the world - if they could change science first.

Some early career scholars feel there is not enough support for academics who reach out, say Richard Watermeyer and Jamie Lewis.

Recent developements in open science.

Another set of ideas for fixing the funding crisis for young researchers.

History shows us that social scientists are essential if we are to get the most out of our engineering and technological innovations.

The government peer-review committees that oversee grants are conservative by design. Given that their job is to put taxpayers’ money to good use, they are often reluctant to take big risks. The opposite is often true for crowdfunded projects.

Holly Else examines European efforts to make academic career paths less challenging to navigate

A perverse focus on research cash and high-impact publications threatens careers and the aims of science itself, says Dorothy Bishop

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.

Forcing research to fit the mould of high-impact journals weakens it. Hiring decisions should be based on merit, not impact factor.

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.

Researchers on social media discuss the potential impact of making peer review more transparent.

The British commentator George Monbiot once compared academic publishers to the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, concluding that the former were more predatory.

How a recent "bad luck" cancer study illustrates failure of science journalism.

A light-hearted opinion piece about the arbitrariness of academic success.