Inequalities in science
Little attention has been paid to the large, changing inequalities in the world of scientific research.
Little attention has been paid to the large, changing inequalities in the world of scientific research.
Peer review, many boffins argue, channelling Churchill, is the worst way to ensure quality of research, except all the others. The system, which relies on papers being vetted by anonymous experts prior to publication, has underpinned scientific literature for decades.
Data on the career paths of young researchers would help to guide the lost generation.
Climate change is the perfect example of how a cut-and-dry scientific issue can become controversial if it is represented consistently in partisan terms. Let’s not drag funding into the fray as well.
When scientists moan about how little politicians know about science, I usually get annoyed. Such grouching is almost always counterproductive and more often than not betrays how little scientists know about the UK's governance structures, processes, culture and history.
We first announced plans to investigate identifiers for grants in 2017 and are almost ready to violate the first rule of grant identifiers which is “they probably should not be called grant identifiers”.
Researchers seeking science funding can be big losers in the equality and diversity game.
A study of 104 children from ages 3 to 10 found similar patterns of brain activity in boys and girls as they engaged in basic math tasks, researchers reported.
Male post-docs and PhD candidates work more than their female colleagues, but female professors work the most hours of all, according to the latest time use survey.
A community of students, researchers, Nobel Laureates, philanthropists, science-lovers and research institutes to launch a new way to support the big, risky blue-sky research the world needs.
Embracing a global view of EU research infrastructures could boost science diplomacy and break down walls put up by divisive politics. But new rules on cooperation and more funding are needed to deliver the vision.
Are you participating in a H2020 funded project? Would you like to know more on how to comply with the H2020 Open Access mandate? Join in this moderated FOSTER/OpenAIRE Course on Open Access to Publications in Horizon 2020.
Studie der Sozialforschungsstelle der Universtität Zürich.
The Riemann hypothesis, a formula related to the distribution of prime numbers, has remained unsolved for more than a century.
Researchers have been receiving notices from Academia.edu with takedown requests from Elsevier.
A new agency rule would restrict the science that can be used in drafting health regulations by requiring researchers to turn over confidential health data.
This year taught us more about distant planets and our own world, about the ways we're influencing our environment and the ways we're changing ourselves.
Graphics are becoming increasingly important for scientists to effectively communicate their findings to broad audiences, but most researchers lack expertise in visual media.
Scientists need ways to evaluate themselves and their colleagues. These evaluations are necessary for better everyday management: hiring, promotions, awarding grants and so on. One evaluation metric has dominated these decisions, and that is doing more harm than good.
The long arm of the law has reached into an investigation of alleged scientific misconduct in Italy.
Analysis finds female-led papers are more likely to be rejected, and less likely to be cited, than those with male corresponding authors.
Authorea, the collaborative document editor for researchers, announced a partnership and direct submission agreement with bioRxiv, the leading preprint server for biological research.
Brian Schmidt says academia is losing brightest researchers because they cannot endure 'intolerable' precarity throughout their thirties
A new study shows universities pay more or less for academic journal bundles than would be expected based simply on size or number of Ph.D.s granted.
Current efforts to make research more accessible and transparent can reinforce inequality within STEM professions.
Scientists have few direct incentives to replicate other researchers’ work, including precious little funding to do replications. Can that change?