Why STEM Majors Need the Humanities
It’s often argued that studying the liberal arts will enrich the life of the mind. For STEM majors, it can also give them a practical advantage in their careers.
Send us a link
It’s often argued that studying the liberal arts will enrich the life of the mind. For STEM majors, it can also give them a practical advantage in their careers.
2016 will go down as a year that taught us to question our assumptions. The election of Donald Trump, an outcome
There are a few red flags to look out for when reading about new scientific discoveries that can help you spot dodgy or unreliable work.
Evading science communication simply because it is difficult, time-consuming or not important enough reflects more on how much scientists value their own work and its place in posterity.
Dame Athene Donald laments the lack of progress on gender issues
BioRxiv is a pre-print repository for life science researchers who can now easily share their unpublished work with the research community.
Fixing problems in the academic job market by reducing the number of PhDs would homogenise the sector, argues Tom Cutterham.
Highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers.
The world's largest scholarly journal, PLOS ONE, is seeing fewer and fewer researchers publish their work in it as the open-access publishing market evolves.
Publication bias, in which positive results are preferentially reported by authors and published by journals, can restrict the visibility of evidence against false claims and allow such claims to be canonized inappropriately as facts.
Articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often.
A current debate about conflicts of interest related to biomedical research is to question whether the focus on financial conflicts of interest overshadows “nonfinancial” interests that could put scientific judgment at equal or greater risk of bias.
Time devoted to research is increasingly precious to us in academia. We chastise ourselves for not being able to keep up with the huge volumes of current literature. If only there was some way that all the latest literature on a particular topic could be packaged together for us, and delivered right to our inbox without us even having to lift a finger! Now, what would we call such an improbable utopia – ah yes, peer review.
Searching Google Scholar in 16 languages revealed that 35.6% of 75,513 scientific documents on biodiversity conservation published in 2014 were not in English.
This map shows that across Africa, India, Central America and parts of the Middle East, people are more likely to believe that one of the “bad effects” of science is that it “breaks down ideas of right and wrong”.
Debates over climate change and genome editing present the need for researchers to venture beyond their comfort zones to engage with citizens — and they should receive credit for doing so.
232 new predatory open-access publishers over 2016.
Young scientists angry at budget cuts say they have been denied permanent jobs.
Groups of authors citing each other is becoming an issue in scientific publishing. With a new approach, researchers discuss how to identify the problem.
Gary McDowell, Misty Heggeness and colleagues present census data showing how the biomedical workforce is fundamentally different to those of past generations – academia should study the trends, and adapt.
Health care policy, space and evolution led the way.
Evidence from Web of Science showing that English is increasingly being used as the dominating language from natural sciences and social sciences to arts and humanities.
One of the watchwords of politics in 2016 was the epidemic of “fake news” — a catch-all term encompassing propaganda, misinformation, disinformation and hoaxing — impinging on the presidential campaign. But let’s not overlook its spread in the spheres of science and medicine.
Neuroskeptic« No Need To Worry About False Positives in fMRI?What Happens to Rejected Papers?By Neuroskeptic | January 3, 2017 2:43 pm32The pain of rejection is one that every scientist has felt: but what happens to papers after they’re declined by a journal?In a new study, researchers Earnshaw et al. traced the fate of almost 1,000 manuscripts which had been submitted to and rejected by ear, nose and throat journal Clinical Otolaryngology between 2011 to 2013.