The replicability of psychological research is surprisingly low. Why? In this blog post I present new evidence showing that questionable research practices contributed to failures to replicate psyc…
There is increasing support in the scholarly communications community for “flipping” the standard journal publishing model from subscription-based to “gold” open access...
Who reads science blogs, and why? This broad question started this Experiment.com project, and now the results are in.
Supporting Europe's innovators through open innovation - 2014-2019
Turning scientific evidence into policy exposes a gulf between how scientists think and how policymakers work. Here’s what scientists need to know
A 40-year longitudinal cross-validation of citations, downloads, and peer review in astrophysics
Empowering the Next Generation to Advance Open Access, Open Education and Open Data.
Female scientists face everyday, often-unintentional microaggression in the workplace, and it won't stop unless we talk about it, says Tricia Serio.
David Kent breaks down an eLife article that suggests peer review scores cannot distinguish very good grants from excellent grants. In fact, at a certain point in the process, it is pretty much a random lottery.
Climate scientists skeptical of plans for new center
A new open science business model charges those who want to keep information private to subsidise those who share it
In this interview with EuroScientist, Lawrence Rajendran explains why he created Matters, to change the way we communicate science.
For every characteristic of uberisation, there is a parallel in the world of research. This raises the question of whether research was "uberised" before Uber even existed?
In response to rising concerns about irreproducible science and the lack of somewhere to openly discuss these issues, we recently launched the Preclinical Reproducibility and Robustness Channel.
Concerns over AI are not simply fear-mongering. Progress in the field will affect society profoundly, and it is important to make sure that the changes benefit everyone.
A discussion of the common underpinning problems with the scientific and data analytic practices and point to tools and behaviors that can be implemented to reduce the problems with published scientific results.
If academic discoveries turn out to be wrong, one drug company wants its money back.
The impact factor is academia’s worst nightmare. So much has been written about its flaws, both in calculation and application, that there is little point in reiterating the same tired points here …
The Federal Council has launched a new National Research Programme (NRP) on ways of achieving a sustainable economy. This NRP is expected to contribute significantly to a more sustainable economy and greater resource security, resulting in increased competitiveness for the Swiss economy and more prosperity for the population. This programme will run for five years and is budgeted at CHF 20 million.
An exclusive look at data from the controversial web site Sci-Hub reveals that the whole world, both poor and rich, is reading pirated research papers.
Johannes Haushofer bravely posts document listing degree programs he did not get in to and academic positions he did not get
Carlo Doglioni aims to concentrate on science, leaving trial and corruption allegations behind
Cancel your plans for this weekend! CERN just dropped 300 terabytes of hot collider data on the world and you know you want to take a look.
13 tips to make submitting your paper a breeze
A narrative review of empirical evidence
In 2012, network scientist and data theorist Samuel Arbesman published a disturbing thesis: What we think of as established knowledge decays over time.
