OpenCon 2016
Empowering the Next Generation to Advance Open Access, Open Education and Open Data.
Speak up about subtle sexism in science
Female scientists face everyday, often-unintentional microaggression in the workplace, and it won't stop unless we talk about it, says Tricia Serio.
Peer review appears to be a poor predictor of impact
Peer review appears to be a poor predictor of impact
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.
Australia’s national labs learn details of staff cuts
Climate scientists skeptical of plans for new center
When privacy-bound research pays for open science
A new open science business model charges those who want to keep information private to subsidise those who share it
The Lego approach to scientific publishing
In this interview with EuroScientist, Lawrence Rajendran explains why he created Matters, to change the way we communicate science.
Are the disruptions of uberisation a bane or boon for 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?
Call for papers: publish your confirmatory and non-confirmatory results
Call for papers: publish your confirmatory and non-confirmatory results
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.
Anticipating artificial intelligence
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.
Is most published research really false?
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.
Merck Wants Its Money Back if University Research Is Wrong
Merck Wants Its Money Back if University Research Is Wrong
If academic discoveries turn out to be wrong, one drug company wants its money back.
How can academia kick its addiction to the impact factor?
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 …
Federal Council launches new National Research Programme
Federal Council launches new National Research Programme
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.
Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone
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.
Princeton professor publishes resume of his career lows
Johannes Haushofer bravely posts document listing degree programs he did not get in to and academic positions he did not get
Troubled geophysics institute gets a new boss
Carlo Doglioni aims to concentrate on science, leaving trial and corruption allegations behind
CERN releases 300TB of Large Hadron Collider data into open access
CERN releases 300TB of Large Hadron Collider data into open access
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.
The things you hate most about submitting manuscripts
13 tips to make submitting your paper a breeze
Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine?
A narrative review of empirical evidence
Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?
In 2012, network scientist and data theorist Samuel Arbesman published a disturbing thesis: What we think of as established knowledge decays over time.
Duplicated images plague research papers
A new analysis finds that 3.8 percent of scientific studies have images duplicated from another paper.
Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Versions
Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Versions
An analysis reveals that the text contents of the scientific papers generally change very little from their pre-print to final published versions.
Science Magazine’s Defense of Expensive Journals
Science magazine just published a great piece on the utility of Sci-Hub. Unfortunately, its defense of its own business model is flawed.