To Catch Misconduct, Journals Are Hiring Research Integrity Czars
Scientific journals' creation of dedicated positions for rooting out misconduct before publication comes amid growing awareness of such issues.
Scientific journals' creation of dedicated positions for rooting out misconduct before publication comes amid growing awareness of such issues.
Researchers share tips for transforming your group with open data science and teamwork.
It's been just over a decade since the concept of Open Access first captured the attention of the scientific and scholarly research community.
Despite the typical stigma of retracting a scientific paper, Nathan Georgette is doing just fine — serving as a model to those many decades his senior.
It’s very far from perfect, but major changes for the better are underway.
Agency reminds researchers to report foreign ties, keep peer reviews confidential.
Elsevier's new report with Sense About Science about how to make research more reliable and less burdensome.
Transmission through aerosols matters - and probably a lot more than we've been able to prove yet.
Some scientists want to change the old-fashioned way scientific advancements are evaluated and communicated. But they have to overcome the power structure of the traditional journal vetting process.
Why colleges and universities that claim to take teaching seriously need a comprehensive and fair system of evaluating it.
Researchers are rushing to pool resources and data sets to tackle the pandemic, but the new era of openness comes with concerns around privacy, ownership and ethics.
Computer science departments need to teach coders more than just how to code.
Community-developed standards, such as those for the identification, citation and reporting of data, underpin reproducible and reusable research, aid scholarly publishing, and drive both the discovery and the evolution of scientific practice.
Göttingen infection researchers identify a potential drug.
In the UK and the US, white people are being vaccinated more quickly than others. It might well be the same in Germany ― but statistics based on ethnicity are not collected here. Is it time to close the data gap?
How can publishers ensure that our content and services are found and used by the growing number of Millennials and Generation Z researchers in academia?
Scientists from the World Economic Forum's Young Scientists community want to see the social value of scientific research better recognised and acknowledged. Published today by Frontiers Policy Labs, a call has been signed by 52 scholars from some of the world's foremost academic institutions. The signatories say that for science to become rooted in decision-making, a new culture of engagement between policymakers and scientists needs to be established.
The importance of science in helping the UN to make progress on key issues is as clear and critical as ever. Yet participation of the scientific community is not what it could and needs to be.
A call on research organizations and their libraries to secure and earmark a share of their acquisition budgets to support the development of scientific publishing activities.
The assumption that the publication of an article in a high-impact factor, indexed journal somehow adds value to international science is a collective illusion - one that is unfortunately shared by funding agencies, institutions and researchers. This illusion - which serves as an excuse to delegate the evaluation of science to for-profit companies and anonymous reviewers for the sake of false objectivity - costs taxpayers dearly.
Automated tools could speed up and improve the review process, but humans are still in the driving seat. Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with just 20% of scientists taking on most reviews. Now peer review by artificial intelligence (AI) is promising to improve the process, boost the quality of published papers — and save reviewers time.
Climanosco believes that changing the language can make the debate around climate science can become more inclusive. The organisation publishes papers that have been reviewed by teams of both scientists and laypeople.
COVID-19 has highlighted the need to work with researchers all around the world at the same time that it has also exposed the inequalities in the global research and knowledge system.
Notices should make obvious whether a withdrawal of research is the result of misconduct or a genuine mistake, says Daniele Fanelli.