Around six-in-ten Democrats support increased spending for scientific research, compared with 40% of Republicans, a gap that has grown over time.
Envisioning the scientific paper of the future.
Organs are not the only item of value from the deceased.
Scientific publications are getting more and more names attached to them
Editors and peer reviewers impose tougher standards on women. This is evident from the fact that female-authored economics papers take around six months more to go through the review process than male-authored papers. As a result, female academics come to experience peer review as a much tougher process and those who progress on the career ladder adjust their expectations about what is required. Female researchers publish less than their male peers do but what they publish is much more readable and better written.
Publishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.
Gender and Precarious Research Careers aims to advance the debate on the process of precarisation in higher education and its gendered effects, and springs from a three-year research project across institutions in seven European countries. Examining gender asymmetries in academic and research organisations, this insightful volume focuses particularly on early careers. It centres both on STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and SSH (Social Science and Humanities) fields.
Scientific publishers must shake off three centuries of publishing on paper and embrace 21st century technology to make scientific communication more intelligible, reproducible, engaging and rapidly available.
This blog explores why citizen science matters and how governments can support its growth through inclusive strategies, robust infrastructure, and international collaboration.
In the 21st Century, research is increasingly data- and computation-driven. Researchers, funders, and the larger community today emphasize the traits of openness and reproducibility. In March 2017, 13 mostly early-career research leaders who are building their careers around these traits came together with ten university leaders (presidents, vice presidents, and vice provosts), representatives from four funding agencies, and eleven organizers and other stakeholders in an NIH- and NSF-funded one-day, invitation-only workshop titled “Imagining Tomorrow’s University.” Workshop attendees were charged with launching a new dialog around open research – the current status, opportunities for advancement, and challenges that limit sharing.
The workshop examined how the internet-enabled research world has changed, and how universities need to change to adapt commensurately, aiming to understand how universities can and should make themselves competitive and attract the best students, staff, and faculty in this new world. During the workshop, the participants re-imagined scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era, to uncover new opportunities for universities to create value and serve society. They expressed the results of these deliberations as a set of 22 principles of tomorrow's university across six areas: credit and attribution, communities, outreach and engagement, education, preservation and reproducibility, and technologies.
MIT’s Kate Darling, who writes the rules of human-robot interaction, says an AI-enabled apocalypse should be the least of our concerns.
Given that science is the key driver of human progress, improving the efficiency of scientific investigation and yielding more credible and more useful research results can translate to major benefits.
Grant reviewers favour 'broad' words used more often by men, but proposals using those terms don't produce better research.
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.
HHMI meeting examines ways to improve manuscript vetting: little consensus on whether reviewers should have to publicly sign their critiques, which traditionally are accessible only to editors and authors.
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.
The Institute of Medicine takes a step in the right direction but we should move even faster.
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.
If nations and their research institutions are to produce more impactful science, they need to encourage scientists to travel, collaborate and work across borders.
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.
An unbending reward system prevents early-career researchers taking full advantage of the digital world.
Young people are going on a climate strike and researchers are supporting their cause. Reto Knutti discusses the issues.
