Some evidence showing that the more revisions a paper undergoes, the greater its subsequent recognition in terms of citation impact.
Academics are challenging the control of a select group of publishing houses over scientific journals.
Today, the Board on Higher Education and Workforce at the NAS announced the formation of a 16-person committee to work on the Next Generation of Researchers study. This study was commissioned by the U.S. Congress in the fiscal 2016 omnibus appropriations package that passed in December 2015.
A short list of seven functionalities that academic publishers looking to modernize their operations might invest in; from unencumbered access and improved social components, to dynamic data visualisations and more precise hyperlinking.
Are you having trouble staying on top of the ever-growing body of scientific knowledge? Science Careers asked a few scientists to discuss how they keep up with the literature.
Germany's ruling political parties have agreed to plough €5 billion (US$5.4 billion) more into science from 2018 to 2028.
Obviously peer review should not be abandoned entirely, but it is time to recognise the need for a separate category of highly innovative research with appropriate funding.
President Juncker welcomes world-leading scientists, discusses role of science in competitiveness and announces new mechanism for scientific advice.
Discussion about open-access publishing and the future of scientific communication and peer-review at the Open Science Summit 2012.
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.
Researchers face pressure to hype and report selectively, says Dorothy Bishop.
New analysis finds that smaller labs get more bang for the buck.
Two years in, a $1-billion-plus effort to simulate the human brain is in disarray. Was it poor management, or is something fundamentally wrong with Big Science?
[3]A study at the University of Montreal shows that Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Sage now publish more than 50% of all academic articles. This number has been rising, thanks to mergers and acquisitions, from 30% in 1996 and only 20% in 1973.
Latin American researchers have a specific social commitment to ensure that their work is accessible and contributing to the good of their communities, says Victoriano Colodrón.
A single academic paper, published by three Australian researchers in 2007, has been cited by Wikipedia editors over 2.8 million times - the next most popular work only shows up a little more than 21,000. And the researchers behind it didn't have a clue.
Articles published open access are cited more often than articles that are not. End of Story.
Two leading figures in German research see it as stuck in a ‘deep slump’. But more money is not necessarily the answer.
A new book argues for less focus on structures and funding for interdisciplinarity, and more on the everyday highs and lows of collaboration.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been heavily criticized over decades. This opinion piece argues that the JIF should not be demonized. It still can be employed for research evaluation purposes by carefully considering the context and academic environment.
When scientists in California and around the world finally solved the mystery of gravitational waves last year, only one question remained: Who should get credit for the discovery?
