Technology has helped so many industries evolve over the past few decades, but scientific publishing, surprisingly, has hardly changed since the first journal article in 1665.
Preprints uploaded to a public server without formal review can speed up the sharing of biomedical information without harming the scientific process.
The War on Science is more than a skirmish over funding, censorship, and “alternative facts”. It’s a battle for the future, basic decency, and the people we love.
The expanding economies of South America have led to a significant rise in scientific output over the past two decades, and research spending has increased in most countries. But given the region's share of the world's population and GDP, publication rates still fall short of what would be expected.
Highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers.
When comparing journals using citation-based metrics, the percentage of highly cited papers is more informative than the average number of citations.
This post argues that for academic books to be genuinely open, an emphasis should be placed on collective funding models that limit the prospect of new barriers to access being erected through the imposition of expensive book processing charges (BPCs).
Bringing together a range of studies into various aspects of how preprints interact with the wider information ecosystem, Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Alice Fleerackers argue that the speed, accessibility and low barriers to entry that preprints offer to scholarly communication risk being undermined by attempts to make them more aligned to traditional academic publications.
Growth in scientific publishing as a barrier to science communication.
The winners in Trump's America were likely to be the defence industry, oil and energy, private prisons, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Not health. What should be the response of the public health community?
Frontiers’ CEO, Kamila Markram, makes a case for why open science is the key to innovation, economic growth and solutions to a sustainable future.
When you criticize science in public, you are taking a complicated argument to people who don’t care very much about the work of someone who wishes you’d shut up. This can be difficult to navigate. Although it’s often ‘a complete pain in the taint’ more than just ‘difficult’.
There should be a prominent place for theory within biology papers, both as Results in papers that combine experiment and theory, and as Results in theory papers.
Ignoring science's legacy of racism or a wider culture shaped by white supremacy doesn't make scientists "objective".
Why did a certain band eliminate brown M&M's from their dressing room? And what does that have to do with the formatting requirements at some journals? This article explains.
Editormetrics analyses the role of editors of academic journals and their impact on the scientific publication system - but open, structured and machine-readable data remains rare.
We formulate ten simple rules for considering using preprints as a scientific communication mechanism.
Jonathan Park's scientific interests changed after caring for a cancer patient. He ended up bidding an amicable farewell to Mark Gerstein, a supportive supervisor who had taught him a lot.
While Open Science infrastructures are used a lot, their funding is precarious. TSOSI is a project that aims to improve this situation by making financial support for open infrastructure more visible.
The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?
Researchers have created a new system to test influential papers for reproducibility.
Academic publishing is becoming more about establishing a pecking order and less about pursuing knowledge.
Illusions of discovery are holding science back. But even if we wanted to do the right thing and evaluate scientific papers based on their quality, regardless of how flashy and exciting the claims of discovery may be, it’s not clear how we’d do that.
