How does Australia fare in science and research funding? Where have recent cuts been made? This infographic shows the state of science funding in Australia.

John Ioannidis argues that problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency define useful clinical research. He suggests most clinical research is not useful and reform is overdue.

This report sets out to show the role of the EU in UK-based researchers’ international collaborations and mobility.

A first small-scale case study suggests that the new incarnation of Microsoft Academic presents us with an excellent alternative for citation analysis.

The working group responsible for creating new guidelines for open access to research results has today delivered their report to the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

A scientific study of the importance of diagrams to science

Using the Finnish Research Output as an Example

How can reproducibility be funded and enforced?  One solution is to make it a part of the requirements to complete a PhD.

A set of twelve principles that represent the cornerstones of the future scholarly communication system. They are designed to provide a coherent frame of reference for the debate on how to improve the current system. With this document, we are hoping to inspire a widespread discussion towards a shared vision for scholarly communication in the 21st century.

Obtaining a more joined up picture of financial flows is vital as a means for researchers, ­institutions and others to understand and shape changes to the ­sociotechnical systems that underpin scholarly communication.

Results of the 357 total responses collected at the ASAPbio conference.

At first glance, the most innovative universities in Europe don't appear to have much in common. Some are Catholic schools, some are secular, others are state-run and some are private. One is 920 years old. Another has been an independent institution for less than a decade. They’re scattered across the continent, some in large cities, others in rural areas.

A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison.

This study outlines the development of a gender index, focused on gender roles and institutionalised gender, using secondary survey data from the Canadian Labour Force survey. Using this index we then examined the distribution of gender index scores among men and women, and changes in gender roles among male and female labour force participants between 1997 and 2014.

A list of 10 rules with researchers in mind: researchers having some knowledge of statistics, possibly with one or more statisticians available in their building, or possibly with a healthy do-it-yourself attitude and a handful of statistical packages on their laptops.

A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship.

Many recent clinical and preclinical studies appear to be irreproducible; their results cannot be verified by outside researchers. This is problematic for not only scientific reasons but legal ones: patents grounded in irreproducible research appear to fail their constitutional bargain of property rights in exchange for working disclosures of inventions.

Examining the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors’ seniority.

A new study of a novel undergraduate program at the University of Texas (UT), Austin, has found that giving college freshmen the opportunity to do research as part of their coursework significantly increases their chances of completing college and graduating with a science degree.

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But what does “excellence” mean? Does it in fact mean anything at all? And is the pervasive narrative of excellence and competition a good thing?

A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and h-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author’s research merit, it is therefore not enough to consider only the collective impact of the published papers, it is also necessary to quantify his/her share in the impact. For this quantification, here I propose the I-index which is defined as an author’s percentage share in the total citations that his/her papers have attracted.

The language and conceptual framework of “research reproducibility” are nonstandard and unsettled across the sciences. In this Perspective, we review an array of explicit and implicit definitions of reproducibility and related terminology, and discuss how to avoid potential misunderstandings when these terms are used as a surrogate for “truth.”

The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing - no deliberate cheating nor loafing - by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement.

Altmetrics have gained momentum and are meant to overcome the shortcomings of citation-based metrics. In this regard some light is shed on the dangers associated with the new “all-in-one” indicator altmetric score.

Using the “#arseniclife” controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review.

Editorials are generally about what we did right in our journal and we do not often publish about our failures. Yet, in this Editorial we feel we have to convey the full story of how we went entirely off track with the publication of a paper.

Observational study from 1994 to 2014

Digital Research Report: An analysis of the UK's competitive research funding.

Evidence from UMETRICS Data Linked to the 2010 Census

Reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true.