publications
Send us a link
A paper proposing an index (namely, the L-index) that does not depend on the number of publications, accounts for different co-author contributions and age of publications, and scales from 0.0 to 9.9.
Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose.
An empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes.
Whether and how gender affects the selection of reviewers.
The small but focused snapshot of research afforded by the Nature Index helps fine-tune analysis of global scientific collaboration.
85% of German scientists use Wikipedia (30% at least daily), 5% contribute to it. (In German.)
Though there are currently no mechanisms in place to quickly identify findings that are unlikely to replicate, this paper shows that prediction markets are well suited to bridge this gap.
An analysis of the education of researchers that constitute the main Brazilian research groups, using data on about 6,000 researchers.
Breuning et al. include some tips for avoiding reviewer fatigue:
An analysis of WoS data spanning more than 100 years reveals the rapid growth and increasing multidisciplinarity of physics, as well its internal map of subdisciplines.
White paper showing that the vast majority of authors believe that blind peer review helps to minimize discrimination.
On [22]the incidence and role of negative citations in science.
A research review on funding and gender produced by the Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research, Gothenburg University.
The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented.
The ERC has published today an analysis of the portfolio of its projects funded from 2007 to 2013 under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP7).
The researchers' conclusions are drawn from a database they assembled of more than 6 million scholarly publications in biomedicine and chemistry.
A fresh take on scientific workforce diversity approaching it as a scientific opportunity rather than as an intractable problem.
Crowdsourcing research can balance discussions, validate findings and better inform policy.
You may not have the time or interest to read the guidebook’s full 85 pages, but it’s a great compilation of resources that can be a valuable compass as you navigate the sometimes turbulent waters of a postdoctoral fellowship.
Switzerland named world’s most competitive economy, again, for the seventh year in a row.
A OECD Report on the benefits and the action required to make open science a reality.
A new regulatory framework for the 21st century.
BMC editors show that the quality of peer review is slightly higher in BMC Infectious Diseases that operates open peer review compared to BMC Microbiology operating single-blind peer review.
Ebook covering key insights about traditional and alternative research impact indicators.
The current and future issues around post-publication open peer review and the protagonists and platforms that encourage open peer review, pre-and post-publication.
The potential benefits and challenges that could arise from the use of quotas as one way to achieve better gender balance in academia.
