ScienceGeist

A former dean chronicles the challenges of returning to full-time teaching.

Scientists receive too little peer-review training. Here's one method for effectively peer-reviewing papers, says Mathew Stiller-Reeve.

On Ada Lovelace Day, we should rethink access to scientific fields, says researcher Jess Wade.

To assess whether research is relevant to society, ask the stakeholders, say Catherine Durose, Liz Richardson and Beth Perry.

A Cornell food scientist’s downfall could reveal a bigger problem in nutrition research.

Seven researchers and campaigners tell Nature how Britain’s break-up with the EU is affecting research.

The prize-awarding academies are making changes to their secretive nomination processes to tackle bias, but some say the measures don’t go far enough.

We suggest that moving from an authorship to a contributorship model would better reflect the many and varied contributions to large, complex, long-term and management-intensive projects in modern science.

Peter Kraker on Google Dataset Discovery, the open science movement, and his #DontLeaveItToGoogle campaign.

A recent investigation led by an international group of journalists raised concerns over the scale of the problem of deceptive publishing practices, but the problem of predatory publishing was overstated while at the same time discrediting open access publishing.

Considering the future of research assessment, Elizabeth Gadd outlines how she believes research evaluation could be made better, fairer, and more meaningful. The resulting seven guiding principles…

How to step out from the shadow of your principal investigator.

The fall of a prominent food and marketing researcher may be a cautionary tale for scientists who are tempted to manipulate data and chase headlines.

Researchers should embrace negative results instead of accentuating the positive, which is one of several biases that can lead to bad science.

Blockchain technology is essentially a secure, distributed ledger that can serve as the foundation for many systems. It’s strange to think that something

Compiling the evidence from dozens of studies doesn't always bring clarity.

Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. Submission fees deserve serious consideration.

The measles outbreak in the United States and Europe keeps spreading despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. The cause? Science-denial.

In academia's great migration, some researchers are at a disadvantage.

We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them.

Paul Benneworth and Kate Maxwell explain why we need public funding for science that creates truly public benefits.

The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad press. Some of the criticism is surely deserved, but the widespread notion that academia is morally superior is ridiculous, says Richard Grant.

Without affirmative action through gender quotas and targets, we will have another 30 years of glacial progress on gender equity in academia.

Stop blaming motherhood for a problem created by fathers.

Will Plan S deprive researchers of quality journal venues and of international collaborative opportunities, while disadvantaging scientists whose research budgets preclude paying and playing in this OA league?

'Most highly cited' criterion is not the most appropriate.

They refuse to see me as a member of the professional and intellectual community.

The battle for evidence-based reason may have to move elsewhere, says Jenny Rohn.