The science to look out for in 2016
Space missions, carbon capture and gravitational waves are set to shape the year.
Why researchers keep citing retracted papers
Some papers cite the retracted work to examine the retraction itself. Others may simply be pointing out that the findings of a withdrawn paper have been proven false.
For female scientists, mixed funding results at US agencies
A new study by a congressional watchdog agency finds that female scientists are less likely than men to receive research grants from the U.S. government.
When teamwork doesn't work for women
New evidence suggests that the underrepresentation of women reflects a systemic bias in that marketplace: a failure to give women full credit for collaborative work done with men.
Singapore lavishes big money on its scientists
Science spending in Singapore is set to surge by 18%.
World's most international universities 2016
Times Higher Education World University Rankings data reveal the top 200 most outward-looking institutions.
Cashing in on transparency in science
$1000 to each of the first 1000 scientists preregistering their protocols with Nosek's Center for Open Science.
Peer evaluation of science
This is a proposal for a system for evaluation of the quality of scientific papers by open review of the papers through a platform inspired by StackExchange.
As PLOS cedes some ground, a movement gathers steam
Last year "PLOS ONE" published 10% fewer papers than it did two years ago, but its editors are not alarmed.
Do "top" journals attract "too good to be true" results?
The most prestigious journals publish the least reliable science (at least when looking at the available evidence from experimental fields).
The world's most influential scientific minds
Highly Cited Researchers in 2015 according to Thomson Reuters.
Seven actionable strategies for advancing women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Seven actionable strategies for advancing women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine
A shortlist of recommendations to promote gender equality in science and stimulate future efforts to level the field.
How to boost scientific production?
A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors.
Publishing, commerce, and the scientific ethos
Report to the Swiss Science and Innovation Council SSIC.
You want a letter? You write it for me
A few years back, I asked two colleagues for letters of support for my grant proposal. One colleague drafted a letter personally. The other, citing heavy time pressures, asked me to draft the letter myself.
Illumina bid to beat cancer with DNA tests
The DNA sequencing giant will launch a new company, Grail, to develop blood tests to detect cancer.
Unexpected, a video by the Royal Society
Fellow of the Royal Society and future President of the Royal Statistical Society, Sir David Spiegelhalter visits Dr Nicole Janz to discuss reproducibility in scientific publications.
Repetitive flaws
Scientists who submit grant applications to the NIH will be required to explain the scientific premise behind their proposals and defend the quality of their experimental designs.
From frontier research to innovation
ERC funds 135 Proof of Concept grants, a press release.
The peer reviewers’ openness initiative
A new initiative published this week outlines how scientists can make a change to open science practices at an individual level.
Journals to solve 'John Smith' common name problem by requiring author IDs
In an open letter some of the largest academic publishers and scientific societies are announcing that they will not just encourage, but ultimately require, researchers to sign up with ORCID.
The 5-minute journal submission
Pathogens & Immunity promises a quick submission procedure, since it provides a reasonable flexibility about the length of the papers and authors are welcome to include reviews from other journals and their responses.
Journals give more publicity to 'weak science'
Analysis of seven prominent medical journals finds randomised controlled trials are far less likely to receive a press release than weaker observational studies.
Data sharing
Two NEJM editors say data sharing should happen symbiotically, not parasitically.
The Future of Jobs
A WEF report on the widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labour markets over the next five years.
Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing
Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing
A white paper written by Leslie Vosshall and Michael Eisen aimed at promoting pre-print use in biomedicine.
How scientists are doing a bait-and-switch with medical data
Researchers are “choosing their lottery numbers after seeing the draw”, making medicine less reliable - and respected journals are letting them do it.
Insider's view of faculty search kicks off discussion online
A Harvard professor reveals how his hiring committee whittles down the pile of job applications.
Selecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs
One of the strongest beliefs in scholarly publishing is that journals seeking a high impact factor should be highly selective. There is evidence showing this is wrong.
×