Why Fake Data When You Can Fake a Scientist?
Making up names and CVs is one of the latest tricks to game scientific metrics.
Making up names and CVs is one of the latest tricks to game scientific metrics.
Another botched peer review - this one involving a controversial study of police killings - shows how devil's advocates could improve the scientific process.
A report on the SSP Publisher-Funder Task Force's meeting of senior researchers, university administrators, funders, publishers, and representatives from other organizations on the topic of Responsible Research Assessment for the 21st Century.
Scientific misconduct increasingly studied as example of ‘occupational crime’, researcher says.
One of the UK’s leading public health experts has warned that universities should be two-thirds empty in order to prevent massive spikes in coronavirus infections across campuses.
The reversal is intended to 'preserve equity among research communities' and protect young researchers.
New study casts doubts on whether more information about science can really change someone's mind.
Moves to speed up the release of Zika virus research in response to the public health crisis highlight a systemic failure in scientific publishing.
A perspective from Germany's biggest network of doctoral researchers.
Scientists in China, Europe, India, and South Africa say uncertainty surrounding US research policies is beginning to reshape international scientific partnerships.
A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent.
With so much new literature published each year, why are authors increasingly citing older papers?
This article studies international citation and text similarity networks across 150 fields and find that some countries increasingly receive more citations despite researching similar topics as others.
The goal of open access is to allow more people to read and use research outputs. An observed association between highly cited research outputs and open access has been claimed as evidence of increased usage of the research, but this remains controversial.
Proceedings of participant-driven workshops and the organizers’ synthesis of the outcomes of a recent symposium for early career researchers.
Figshare's annual report shows that open data has become more embedded in the research community: 82% of survey respondents are aware of open data sets and more researchers are curating their data for sharing.
A set of best practices for scientific software development, based on research and experience, that will improve scientists' productivity and the reliability of their software.
The tool, called Google Dataset Search, should help researchers to find the data they need more easily.
Although automated publishing would allow researchers to share their findings faster, while also removing human bias, there are obvious ethical dilemmas related to this dehumanisation of the process.
The nearly 60,000-member American Geophysical Union took the bold step of revising its ethics policy to treat harassment, discrimination and bullying as scientific misconduct, with the same types of penalties for offenders. Other scientific organizations have not adopted that standard.
Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs. Application of this straightforward protocol reveals the full extent of the skew of these distributions and the variation in citations received by published papers that is characteristic of all scientific journals. Although there are differences among journals across the spectrum of JIFs, the citation distributions overlap extensively, demonstrating that the citation performance of individual papers cannot be inferred from the JIF. We propose that this methodology be adopted by all journals as a move to greater transparency, one that should help to refocus attention on individual pieces of work and counter the inappropriate usage of JIFs during the process of research assessment.