In the UK and the US, white people are being vaccinated more quickly than others. It might well be the same in Germany ― but statistics based on ethnicity are not collected here. Is it time to close the data gap?
How can publishers ensure that our content and services are found and used by the growing number of Millennials and Generation Z researchers in academia?
Scientists from the World Economic Forum's Young Scientists community want to see the social value of scientific research better recognised and acknowledged. Published today by Frontiers Policy Labs, a call has been signed by 52 scholars from some of the world's foremost academic institutions. The signatories say that for science to become rooted in decision-making, a new culture of engagement between policymakers and scientists needs to be established.
The importance of science in helping the UN to make progress on key issues is as clear and critical as ever. Yet participation of the scientific community is not what it could and needs to be.
Automated tools could speed up and improve the review process, but humans are still in the driving seat. Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with just 20% of scientists taking on most reviews. Now peer review by artificial intelligence (AI) is promising to improve the process, boost the quality of published papers — and save reviewers time.
Climanosco believes that changing the language can make the debate around climate science can become more inclusive. The organisation publishes papers that have been reviewed by teams of both scientists and laypeople.
COVID-19 has highlighted the need to work with researchers all around the world at the same time that it has also exposed the inequalities in the global research and knowledge system.
Some COVID-19 survivors are still sick months later. Doctors want to learn why and what they can do
Geographical inclusion in scholarly publishing needs to do more than just drawing the Global South closer to the Global North.
Research-integrity survey also suggests that there is a split in US- and Europe-based researchers' perceptions of 'questionable research practices'.
A global movement of younger researchers is making its mark. Science must listen and learn from its next generation.
Biosecurity advisers to the federal government are calling for tighter scrutiny of experiments with potentially dangerous viruses and other pathogens, reflecting an ongoing debate within the scientific community over the benefits and risks of such laboratory research.
Travel bans, office closures, and conference cancellations have publishers and societies thinking about how best to ensure that scholarly content continues to be reviewed and distributed. This post by Angela Cochran looks at some of the impacts and questions whether.
We urgently need to create a high-profile campaign devoted to transforming universities in the way required so that humanity may learn how to make social progress toward a better, wiser, more civilized, enlightened world.
Researchers are already moving to countries where it is easier to operate and collaborate.
Image: UN Sustainable Development Goals https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ The world of research is not working as well as it could be. On all sides we see issues with reproducibility, questionable research practices, barriers and walls, wasteful research, and flawed incentive and reward systems. If we want research to be more effective in helping to solve the problems …
Arnold's move garnered praise on Twitter and showed how scientific research needs to change.
The SNSF Starting Grants 2022 target researchers who wanted to apply for a 2022 ERC Starting Grant or for an SNSF Eccellenza Professorial Fellowship. Consequently, there will be no Eccellenza call 2022.
A culture of fear around corrections and retractions is hampering efforts to maintain the integrity of scientific research.
Open access publishing still profits publishers, with little added value for researchers.
This is Module 1 of the Open Science MOOC. This course is totally SELF-PACED, meaning it can be completed whenever you want and in your own time. Rationale: To innovate in a field frequently implies moving against prevailing trends and cultural inertia. Open Science is no different. No matter how convinced you are, you will come across resistance from peers and colleagues, and the best defence is strong personal conviction that what you are doing may not be perfect now, but is the right decision in the long run. This module will introduce the guiding principles of the 'open movement', the different actors involved, and the impact that they are having. Learning outcomes You will be able to describe the ethical, legal, social, economic, and research impact arguments for and against Open Science. After deciding which platforms/tools/services are most useful for themselves and their community, you will develop a personal profile for showcasing your research profile and outputs. After reflecting on the status of Open Science within your research group or lab, you will devise concrete ways to locally improve open practices. Using the guidelines published by their research laboratories, departments, or institutes, you will identify the policies for career progression and assessment, publishing and open access, data sharing, and intellectual property. Resources: Open Principles There are two tasks that are optional as part of this module: Defining how Open Science affects you. Developing your digital researcher profile. These tasks are OPTIONAL. You do NOT need to complete them in order to finish this module. They are, however, strongly recommended still. To complete this module, the only thing you need to do is complete the quiz! Once you have done that, you get this cool certificate to proudly display (the real one is bigger and nicer). Citation: We strongly encourage maximal sharing, re-use, and remixing of all content available for this module. It is also openly-licensed (CC0 or CC-BY at source) and copyright free as such. To cite this work, please use: Jon Tennant; Bruce Caron; Jo Havemann; Samuel Guay; Julien Colomb; Eva Lantsoght; Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra; Katharina Kriegel; Justin Sègbédji Ahinon; Cooper Smout & Gareth O'Neill. (2019, March 16). OpenScienceMOOC/Module-1-Open-Principles 2.0.0 (Version 2.0.0). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595951 Other live modules: Module 5: Open Research Software and Open Source
