In the media circus surrounding the pandemic, it's the loudest researchers who have been heard the most. Why it is important that we also listen to quieter voices in future, and why the state of scientific knowledge should be communicated with greater candour.
Robert Harington suggests that despite the critical role of scholarly societies in publishing and academia, the sad reality is it is the big corporate publishers who win.
Five junior researchers share their thoughts on travel barriers.
Scientists call on the EU to inshrine a legal right for researchers to share their research findings without restrictions.
New report published by Springer Nature analyses usage patterns across open access and closed books.The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books.
Arctic scientists are scrambling to modify projects that had involved Russian researchers as the war in Ukraine wears on, leaving questions about whether a data gap from such a key partner might be harmful to the ongoing body of scientific knowledge in the region.
Young people are going on a climate strike and researchers are supporting their cause. Reto Knutti discusses the issues.
The question has actually been addressed in the scientific literature and the data don’t seem to support this assumption.
Scientific abstracts have become less readable over the past 130 years, in part because recent texts include more general scientific jargon than older texts.
On the need to recognise good practice, engage researchers early in their career with research data management and use peers to talk to those who are not ‘onboard’.
Whilst Brexit looms more ominously in the background, the next generation of data publishing is moving towards an ever-more collaborative and open place in which researchers can easily choose to make discoveries and data sets available across borders and cultures.
The number of women in scientific research continues to lag behind the number of men, even though women make up half the nation's workforce. The question is, What difference does it make?
More than a dozen members of the editorial board at Scientific Reports have resigned after the journal decided not to retract a 2016 paper that a researcher claims plagiarized his work. As of this morning, 19 people — mostly researchers based at Johns Hopkins — had stepped down from the board.
The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors.
Last summer we launched our interactive figures initiative with plotly. Since then, we have published 22 interactives figures in seven articles across two platforms. In this post authors describe their figures and share why they wanted to make them interactive.
Signed reviews could encourage reviewers to produce more careful evaluations, and make fewer gratuitously negative comments. Publicly identifying and crediting reviewers for their work could help them win tenure and promotions.
All stakeholders in the scientific research enterprise -- researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, scientific societies, and federal agencies – should improve their practices and policies to respond to threats to the integrity of research, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Open access publishing is gaining more and more momentum, and post-publication peer review is becoming more common. Those developments have both upsides and downsides.
Why is the Wellcome Trust mandating the use of ORCID?
10% of all postdocs stay in academia but nearly 80% hope to pursue an academic career
More than just an academic problem: on the repercussions of scienctific misconduct on the careers of honest and hard-working scientists.
When it comes to protecting the scientific literature from bias, the safeguards that academics now use are sorely inadequate.
When people talk about the flaws in the scientific process, they often raise the problem of peer review. Right now, when a researcher submits an article for publication in a journal, it's sent off to his or her peers for constructive criticism or even rejection.
Academics share machine-learning research freely. Taxpayers should not have to pay twice to read our findings.
Why is it so frustrating and difficult to talk about scholarly-communication reform, and why do those conversations seem to involve virtually all members of the scholcomm ecosystem?
A professor of higher education at the University of Pennsylvania talks about why faculty diversity is an important — and elusive — goal.
