This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.

Peer review is widely viewed as an essential step for ensuring scientific quality of a work and is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. In this work we investigate the feasibility of a tool capable of generating fake reviews for a given scientific paper automatically.

It is clear that the journal impact factor is not effective in predicting future citations of successful authors.

A paper exploring the dynamics of interdisciplinary research in Italy over 10 years of scientific collaboration on research projects.

Motivational differences among specific groups of researchers at 20 Hungarian higher education institutions.

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

A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison.

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.

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.

Ideally, in a reviewing process, it is generally easier for referees to make faster and more reliable decisions for high quality papers, which ideally and on average will later attract more citations. Therefore, it is possible that the editorial delay time—the time between dates of submission and acceptance or publication—is correlated to the number of received citations, as has been weakly confirmed by previous studies.

In this paper we explore the effectiveness of selected research and innovation policies among EU countries.

A new bibliometrics approach.

What they fund and how they distribute their funds.

A data-driven theoretical investigation of editorial workflows.

This paper shows how bibliometric assessment can be implemented at individual level.

An assessment of the first two years of Horizon 2020 programme, taking into account

A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors.

An empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes.

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.

This paper asks the question: do people with different levels of research productivity and identification as a researcher think of research differently?

This study uses a bibliometric method to examine the relationship between two journal characteristics during 2009–2013: the article processing charges and the percentage of published articles based on work that is supported by grant-funded articles.

The flourishing of citizen science is an exciting phenomenon with the potential to contribute significantly to scientific progress. However, we lack a framework for addressing in a principled and effective manner the pressing ethical questions it raises. We argue that at the core of any such framework must be the human right to science.

This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.

The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects.

A bibliometric analysis.

A scientometric analysis of the UK