Why do we forget so much of what we read? Anthropologist Barbara J. King suggests that the answer might point toward benefits of a slower pace of teaching in the college classroom.
The science publishing world is a complex one, but the pendulum is currently swinging away from the paywalled mega-journals of the last decade to a more open model.
Researcher-centric communication, collaboration and attribution platform powered by blockchain - with proof-of-existence and real-time, permanent, citing for all scientific and scholarly works.
A review on the open citation advantage, media attention for publicly available research, collaborative possibilities, and special funding opportunities to show how open practices can give researchers a competitive advantage.
Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.
The research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. But how do we know that all authors listed on a publication have actually been involved in the research?
The Wellcome Trust is to fund more long-term research projects because of fears that the pressure to publish and the need to show research impact will prevent academics from successfully tackling the world's most pressing challenges.
We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.
Scientific output in Japan has seen a sharp decline in the last decade due to years of inflation, government debt, rising commodity prices and a series of natural disasters.
Instead of making scientists compete for grants based on project proposals, research funding could simply be divided equally among all ‘qualified’ researchers, according to a new paper.
Robert Kiley, our Head of Digital Services, explains why Wellcome has introduced a set of publisher requirements for open access publications.
Countries that are generally more egalitarian, or that have institutions more conductive to equality, have a lower gender performance gap in math, suggesting that this gap is partly shaped by more general societal inequalities.
This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.
It often feels as though today’s health headlines are some scientific version of Mad Libs. And now there’s a study that provides evidence for that hunch.
Researchers have put numbers on the “file drawer” phenomenon, in which scientists abandon results that they believe journals are unlikely to publish.
The author of a new study of biomedical funding explains why he’s optimistic about young scientists’ futures.
Consider biomedical preclinical and clinical research, in which the trusted service involves the exchange of papers, data, software, reagents, and so on.
Empirical study examining the similarities and distinguishing features of scientific attention as measured by citations and public attention in online fora.
An analysis reveals that the text contents of the scientific papers generally change very little from their pre-print to final published versions.
An empirical investigation using Web of Science and Altmetric data investigates how many papers are mentioned in policy-related documents. We find that less than 0.5% of the papers published in different subject categories are mentioned at least once in policy-related documents. Based on our results, we recommend that the analysis of (WoS) publications with at least one policy-related mention is repeated regularly (annually). Mentions in policy-related documents should not be used for impact measurement until new policy-related sites are tracked.
China is spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually in an effort to become a leader in biomedical research. But some experts worry that medical researchers in China are stepping over ethical boundaries long accepted in the West.
Reproducibility failures occur even in fields such as mathematics or computer science that do not have statistical problems or issues with experimental design. Suggested policy changes ignore a core feature of the process of scientific inquiry that occurs after reproducibility failures: the integration of conflicting observations and ideas into a coherent theory.
