What motivates people to review articles?
A survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing.
A survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing.
Evidence from 34 OECD countries.
Writing and reviewing journal articles is part of the core business of a scientist. But it’s not an efficient way to communicate research results.
This dataset contains projects funded by the EU under the H2020. Grant information is provided for each project, including reference, acronym, objective, title, total cost, EC contribution, start date, end date, duration, Call Id, Topic, Funding Scheme, legal basis.
If you are a scientists sharing our concerns you can add your name in the support form on the right.
Olivier Voinnet, a researcher at ETH in Zurich is retracting a 2004 paper in The Plant Cell, according to the journal's publisher.
Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer scientist whose papers often notch hundreds or thousands of citations, has lost a fourth paper, this time a 2009 publication in Cell.
The Cell paper has been cited 150 times, according to Web of Science, while the Nature paper has been cited 40. The Nature paper has not yet been retracted.
Nature readers favour creating more secure jobs to fix science’s broken postdoctoral system.
Nature Biotechnology asks peer reviewers to check accessibility of code used in computational studies.
The $3-million state initiative will coordinate with a national effort to promote individualized patient treatment.
An average academic journal article is read in its entirety by about 10 people. To shape policy, professors should start penning commentaries in popular media.
The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?
How the Max-Planck Society (MPS) wants to improve the condition of PhDs. Interview with Martin Stratmann, President of the MPS.
US science and engineering professors preferred female job candidates by two to one.
How do reviewer recommendations influence editor decisions? And are Chinese authors treated fairly?
Open access isn't just some "free culture" refrain. It really matters and can save lives.
The Web was invented to enable scientists to collaborate.
Rumours of germline modification prove true — and look set to reignite an ethical debate.
The European Parliament has thrown a spanner into the works of Juncker's plan to slash €2.7 billion from the EU's 2014 to 2020 research budget for a new investment fund to help ramp up Europe's economy.
Germany's ruling political parties have agreed to plough €5 billion (US$5.4 billion) more into science from 2018 to 2028.
'Premature' rules for preclinical research need more flexibility and greater community involvement, say scientific society leaders.
Miguel Seabra stepped down from the presidency of Portugal's science funding agency. Although Seabra invoked "personal reasons" for his decision, scientists note that he resigned amid mounting criticism of the agency's policies.
Use these ten principles to guide research evaluation, urge Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters and colleagues.
European Investment Bank and European Commission ridicule the European Parliament.
This transformation will be a huge undertaking for all those involved, and exactly what these new forms of publication will look like none of us yet knows.