Could Robots Handle Peer Review?
Technologist argues that artificial intelligence could make publishing decisions in milliseconds.
Technologist argues that artificial intelligence could make publishing decisions in milliseconds.
Re-structuring presentation programmes could make meetings more accessible.
Researchers and manufacturers face possible jail time — or execution — for fraudulent submissions to nation's drug agency.
We suggest a centralized facility for submitting to journals—one that would benefit scientists and not only publishers.
Without data on how artificial intelligence is affecting jobs, policymakers will fly blind into the next industrial revolution, warn Tom Mitchell and Erik Brynjolfsson.
Add another high-profile departure to the list of people leaving Verily, the Google-spawned health science company: Thomas Insel, a neuroscientist and former head of the National Institutes of Mental Health who was leading Verily’s mental health initiatives.
The case of Colombian scientist Diego Gomez — on trial for copyright violation for sharing a research paper — is likely to reach a head later this month.
We describe the mathematical foundations and structure of TrueReview, an open-source tool we propose to build in support of post-publication review.
New technologies could deliver the benefits of nature without the hassle of life
An intellectual free-for-all doesn’t lead to the common ground on which research can build.
China has a lucrative market for fake research reagents. Some scientists are fighting back.
Presenting science as a battle for truth against ignorance is an unhelpful exaggeration.
ResearchGate and similar services represent a “gamification” of research, drawing on features usually associated with online games, like rewards, rankings and levels.
A brief summary of the main citation indicators used today.
Which platforms exist? Does it work? And what is funded?
Choices researchers can make to stop exploiting themselves and discriminating against others.
Recently, our colleagues at OpenAIRE have published a systematic review of ‘Open Peer Review’ (OPR). As part of this, they defined seven consistent traits of OPR, which we thought sounded like a remarkably good opportunity to help clarify how peer review works at ScienceOpen. At ScienceOpen, we have over 31 million article records all available for …
A list of people to follow on the preprints subject.
One in three scholars in field ‘deeply concerned’ about future research career prospects
Government may delay decision pending court decisions.
Independent professionals advance science in ways faculty-run labs cannot, and such positions keep talented people in research, argues Steven Hyman.
While preprints have been around since before arXiv.org launched in 1991, fields outside of physics are starting to push for more early sharing of research data, results and conclusions.
A team of researchers suggest that the increasing complexity of managing data may be one reason that reproducibility has fallen off.
The imprimatur bestowed by peer review has a history that is both shorter and more complex than many scientists realize.
In this interview, we have a discussion with the co-founder of PaperHive, Alexander Naydenov about the impact PaperHive has had on ESL authors.
Some of the world’s largest research funders and NGOs today agreed to adopt the WHO's strong standards on clinical trial transparency.