Weâre interested in hearing about the challenges faced by early-career scientists worldwide, especially if you've recently started your own lab, are struggling to maintain a lab, or have left research. We want to hear your stories. Your answers may feature in articles published by Nature's news team.
Welfare state expert Peter Taylor-Gooby cheerfully admits his research has had no real-world influence – but hopes a book might.
Many researchers are positive about the new, burgeoning science culture, but they still hesitate to enter into an open exchange of knowledge. There are many reasons why – such as a lack of knowledge about data management and the fear of intellectual property theft.
We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.
Academics are getting out of touch with the rest of society. This helps explains the sorry state of our public discourse on science.
Robert Kiley, our Head of Digital Services, explains why Wellcome has introduced a set of publisher requirements for open access publications.
The government's policy focus on reducing net migration is causing unnecessary harm to the UK s international education sector one of the UK s biggest services exports This report asks how through better informed policy the UK can attract more students in a growing and increasingly competitive global marketplace
A recent statement from Carlos Moedas told us that “as of the Work Programme 2017, the current Open Research Data Pilot will be extended to cover all thematic areas of Horizon 2020, making open research data the default setting. This means that as of January 1st 2017, all funded proposals will need to make all of the data and digital research outputs they generate openly available.
One day in August 2015, the Princeton University neuroscientist Yael Niv saw an email notice of a conference on deep brain stimulation, a hot topic in treatment for depression and other mental disorders. Dr. Niv noticed that none of the 21 scientists scheduled to speak were women.This was not the first time Dr. Niv had lamented a skewed lineup.
Reproducible, transparent and reliable science.
This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.
Eight scientists share the secrets of being a successful principal investigator
Many studies show that open access (OA) articles are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years.
When you pay for something, you expect to receive it. Whether a physical good or a service, there is the rightful expectation that you will receive something in exchange for your money. The same should be true for scientific research.
Papers accepted for publication in Nature and an initial 12 other Nature titles will be required to include information on whether and how others can access the underlying data.
Etalia, Simiary and Writefull, three companies aiming to disrupt the academic space, are the latest recipients of the Catalyst Grant award for innovative startups.
Figshare announced a new partnership with Royal Society to increase research data discoverability.
It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.
Idea is one of several ways to speed the peer review process, although some think it will annoy academics
New study looks at what happened when a university made its publications publicly available through an institutional repository
‘SmartFigures Lab’ is a prototype online publishing website with enhanced data presentation capabilities. The site results from the integration of SmartFigures, an open source application of the EMBO SourceData platform, with Wiley’s Content Enrichment Framework and research & development environment.
It is useful to consider the trajectory of both scientific and literary publishing on the grid-group plane defined by Mary Douglas which arranges attitudes along two axes: one ranging from the hierarchical to the egalitarian, and the other spanning individualistic to communitarian. I would contend that, in both cases, there has been a move from the hierarchical/communitarian quadrant towards the egalitarian/individualistic zone.
Ask people what’s wrong in American higher education, and you’ll hear about grade inflation.
Internal analysis finds women earn 10.5 per cent less than men of similar experience and research productivity
I have just learned that Elsevier, after a lengthy review and negotiation process with the US Patent Office, have been awarded a US Patent on “Online Peer Review System and Method”. What is this about and why is it ridiculous to me.
