Congress is poised to approve a massive piece of legislation that would provide the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with $4.8 billion over the next decade for a set of research initiatives, including brain and cancer research and efforts to develop so-called precision medicine treatments that are tailored to an individual’s genetic makeup.
Embargoes allow journals, universities, nonprofits, and corporations to decide what’s important — and when. That should be up to journalists.
Times Higher Education is looking at what happens when academics make an honest mistake in their research. Can you take the time to answer four simple questions?You will not be asked to leave your name, email address or any other personal information. We cannot track who has taken part.The survey is completely anonymous, so please answer honestly.
From clarity to confusion, Rebecca Pool looks at the highs and lows of data sharing in scholarly publishing
In an era of online discussion, debate must remain nuanced and courteous.
A tool was produced that identifies all completed trials from clinicaltrials.gov, searches for results in the clinicaltrials.gov registry and on PubMed, and presents summary statistics for each sponsor online. Since Jan 2006, trial sponsors included in our dataset have completed 25,927 eligible trials, of which 11,714 (45.2%) have failed to make results available.
iCite allows users ti upload the PubMed IDs of articles of interest, optionally grouping them for comparison. It then displays the number of articles, articles per year, citations per year, and Relative Citation Ratio, a field-normalized metric that shows the citation impact of one or more articles relative to the average NIH-funded paper.
India and China are the main winners in our list of the best universities in emerging economies
Consortium backed by US NIH is first major biology programme to mandate online publication of results ahead of peer review.
Science fraud draws attention, but most scientists think it’s a far lesser threat to their field than the many times researchers cut corners.
Earlier this year, we announced that six teams had made it through to the final of the Open Science Prize. We’re asking you to help us choose the three most impactful and novel prototypes from among the six finalists.
Vote now for he Open Science Prize, a collaboration between the Wellcome Trust, the US NIH and the HHMI to unleash the power of open content and data to advance biomedical research and its application for health benefit.
If you are considering developing a new database, please, for the love of science, follow these 10 simple rules for creating and maintaining (biological) databases.
Women are still underrepresented in terms of authorships, including first and/or last authorships (whichever is more prestigious), coauthorships, and in the granting of scientific prizes.
Community driven paid reviews could work in conjunction with a feed-back loop to young scientists. This promote the integration of reviews into an academic career.
GRID’s comprehensive database of over 66,000 global research organizations now available under a CC0 license, allowing users to make full use of the database releases with no need for attribution.
Preprints are one step towards an Open Science future.
The quality of scientific publications will benefit from a revolution in the peer review models.
Choice of data, methodology and indicators can produce seriously inconsistent results despite a common set of disciplines and countries.
A market place for scientific and scholarly journals which publish articles in open access. Quality scoring of the journals in QOAM is based on academic crowd sourcing; price information includes institutional licensed pricing.
To claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present piles of these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. It is, therefore, worth examining to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.
PeerJ offers the better technology and user experience than bioRxiv, but bioRxiv has greater adoption in the biodata sciences.
Huda Zoghbi, Stephen Elledge, Jean Bourgain, Joe Polchinski and other researchers in life sciences, fundamental physics and mathematics share awards from prize founders Yuri Milner, Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin.
Two features of peer review subvert the goals of science: reviews are kept secret and reviewers are usually anonymous, argues Jeffrey S. Flier.
Today, the Board on Higher Education and Workforce at the NAS announced the formation of a 16-person committee to work on the Next Generation of Researchers study. This study was commissioned by the U.S. Congress in the fiscal 2016 omnibus appropriations package that passed in December 2015.
Download a PDF of "The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited" by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine for free. Description: The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited builds on the 2000 report Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers. That ground-breaking report assessed the postdoctoral experience and provided principles, action points, and recommendations to enhance that experience. Since the publication of the 2000 report, the postdoctoral landscape has changed considerably. The percentage of PhDs who pursue postdoctoral training is growing steadily and spreading from the biomedical and physical sciences to engineering and the social sciences. The average length of time spent in postdoctoral positions seems to be increasing. The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited reexamines postdoctoral programs in the United States, focusing on how postdocs are being guided and managed, how institutional practices have changed, and what happens to postdocs after they complete their programs. This book explores important changes that have occurred in postdoctoral practices and the research ecosystem and assesses how well current practices meet the needs of these fledgling scientists and engineers and of the research enterprise. The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited takes a fresh look at current postdoctoral fellows - how many there are, where they are working, in what fields, and for how many years. This book makes recommendations to improve aspects of programs - postdoctoral period of service, title and role, career development, compensation and benefits, and mentoring. Current data on demographics, career aspirations, and career outcomes for postdocs are limited. This report makes the case for better data collection by research institution and data sharing. A larger goal of this study is not only to propose ways to make the postdoctoral system better for the postdoctoral researchers themselves but also to better understand the role that postdoctoral training plays in the research enterprise. It is also to ask whether there are alternative ways to satisfy some of the research and career development needs of postdoctoral researchers that are now being met with several years of advanced training. Postdoctoral researchers are the future of the research enterprise. The discussion and recommendations of The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited will stimulate action toward clarifying the role of postdoctoral researchers and improving their status and experience.
