Send us a link
Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.
Many biologists are still reluctant to submit preprints, in part out of concern that doing so will allow others to “scoop” their work and undermine their chances of publication in a prestigious journal. I would like to rebut that concern, among others, and to share our research group’s first experience submitting a preprint manuscript.
Whatever we call it, investment in research will lead the way to important short- and long-term discoveries.
While no one is arguing for funding failure, the challenge is how we define “success.”
Ethical, organizational and economic strengths and weaknesses of funder open access platforms: opportunities and threats presented by funder open access platforms in the ongoing transition to open access.
When it’s also big science, the careers of those involved can suffer.
The report identifies and addresses three critical points for women and women of color tech and science entrepreneurs: the myth that there is a "pipeline problem", the fact that traditional accelerator programs are not working for this population and how investors can fix the funding gap.
As young scientists, we are fooled into working harder and longer to live up to sky-high expectations and encouraged to feel inadequate.
Now that many European library consortia are cancelling deals with publishers, how will libraries respond to a world of open access?
The National Cancer Institute has invested millions of dollars into determining the genetic sequences of patients’ tumors, and researchers have found thousands of genes that seem to drive tumor growth. But until patients’ medical records are linked to the genetic data, life-or-death questions cannot be answered.
A graduate student is analyzing how Stormfront and other racist websites misunderstand, and misuse, new scientific papers.
Storytelling is easy to implement in your manuscript provided you know how. Think of the six plot elements - character, setting, tension, action, climax, resolution - and the three other story essentials - main theme, chronology, purpose. You’ll soon outline the backbone of your narrative and be ready to write a paper that is concise, compelling, and easy to understand.
Visual exploration of projects within the OpenAIRE database.
Three steps that could be taken by funding agencies to support young investigators in more constructive and effective ways: (1) greatly expand the use of the New Innovator/Starting Grants awards, (2) increase the funding of young investigators through requests for applications, and (3) experiment with separate competitions for Early Stage Investigators when awarding traditional investigator-initiated R01 grants.
Something strange began happening with a U.S. Department of Education loan program known as Parent PLUS, under which parents borrow money from the government to finance their children’s education.
It takes an average of 15 clicks for a researcher to find and access a journal article. This time could be much better spent
Peer review varies in quality and thoroughness. Making it publicly available could improve it.
Sweden is the latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions, while negotiators share tactics to broker new deals with publishers. Inspired by the results of a stand-off in Germany, negotiators from libraries and university consortia across Europe increasingly declare that if they don’t like what publishers offer, they will refuse to pay for journal access at all.
Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints, based on contributions from the Knowledge Exchange Preprints Advisory Group.
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they've been formally published? A citation is much more than a directional link to the source of a document. It is the basis for a system of rewarding those who make significant contributions to public science.
Scientists pride themselves on being keen observers, but many seem to have trouble spotting the problems right under their noses. Those who run labs have a much rosier picture of the dynamics in their research groups than do many staff members working in the trenches.
A meta-analysis combining the most popular university rankings to find out which ones are best, and showing which university offers the best value for the money. Spoiler: Switzerland, for once, is a good deal.
The 2-day eLife Innovation Sprint was aimed at bringing together 'computer people' and 'science people' in order to create novel tools for open science.
Institutions, research funding bodies and publishers must all work together to change the system in the interest of advancing research, says Steven Inchcoombe.
The AI field is increasingly turning to conference publications and free, open-review websites while shunning traditional outlets - sentiments dramatically expressed in a growing boycott of a high-profile AI journal.
P Shravan Kumar aka Akiraa launched Research Funders, a platform to connect scientists with potential donors who can help fund their research and projects.
On the basis of a survey of 7103 active faculty researchers in nine fields, this paper examines the extent to which scientists disclose prepublication results, and when they do, why?
