ScienceGeist

The virus doesn’t follow the news and doesn’t care about Twitter. This article proposes that reporting should distinguish between at least three levels of information reliability.

Opinion piece argues that Plan S deals have streamlined open access provision in the global North while exacerbating existing inequalities in scholarly publishing, by establishing and entrenching a two-tier system of scholarly publishing based on access to funds. 

John Malloy shares his experiences of risking debt to travel - and discusses what to do about it.

Rows over eugenics reveal how difficult it is to 'decouple' controversial concepts in our heads.

Up-to-the-minute reports and statistics can unintentionally distort the facts.

UKRI and other funders must prevent good intentions on open access from undermining good science, says Lee Cronin.

Science was a place I ultimately left, not so much because I wanted to, but because I had to.

DNA testing companies are starting to profit from selling our data on to big pharma. Perhaps they should be paying us, says science writer Laura Spinney.

Reversing the relationship between authors and publishers would ease perverse incentives that impede progress, say Hilal Lashuel and Benjamin Stecher

Proposals to mandate open access monographs from 2024 will make it harder to publish and will limit career chances, says professor

A survey of New Zealand scientists found that recipients of a randomized funding program favored random allocations of some kinds of grant money.

Standard reports paint a much rosier picture of the research landscape than may be warranted. In this analysis, the first hypothesis of standard articles reported was supported by the data 96% of the time, while that rate was only 44% in registered reports.

When staff go on strike in the UK this month, they will be battling not just for the future of higher education but for our economy and culture, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones.

These are Martin Paul Eve's notes on The UKRI Open Access Review Consultation Document.

Large investments are needed to make research data open and accessible but tackling global problems depends on it, says Paul Ayris 

His original submission was rejected as being "too narrow" - but later authors who presented the same idea as a new technology rather than as a scientific finding have been hailed as inventors of optogenetics.

People who do too much service can take longer to advance in their careers, are often unhappy with how service is distributed in the department and are more likely to burn out or leave the academy, write Rachel McLaren and Anthony Ocampo, who offer tips for avoiding that.

A mean and aggressive research working culture threatens the public's respect for scientists and their expertise, says Gail Cardew.

Champions of traditional journal publishers are often unwilling to acknowledge how slow and ineffective correction in science can be.

And so it is finally happening: tomorrow at midnight central European time, the EU bids farewell to the UK. After a tortured three-and-a-half year plod to the exit, the country heads into an eleven month transition period where everything stands still, and then into the unknown of the yet-to-be negotiated Future Relationship. In light of the historic moment, Science|Business contacted science figures around Europe, to find out:

Responding to an emerging debate around the changing nature of the impact agenda in the UK, the author argues that the current moment presents an opportunity to exorcise the ghosts of previous regimes of incentivising and assessing impact.

Volunteering with an organization can improve communication and help you adapt to the unexpected.

The EOSC FAIR Working Group is examining researcher practice and developing a PID policy, metrics, certification guidelines and an Interoperability Framework to implement a web of FAIR data in EOSC.

Science is built on trust. Trust that your experiments will work. Trust in your collaborators to pull their weight. But most importantly, trust that the data we so painstakingly collect are accurate and as representative of the real world as they can be. And so when I realized that I could no longer trust the data that I had reported in some of my papers, I did what I think is the only correct course of action. I retracted them.

The new report, Presidential Recommendations for 2020: A Blueprint for Defending Science and Protecting the Public, outlines a suite of recommendations that the next president can take to protect the health and safety of the public through restoring science to government decisionmaking processes. The report focuses on strengthening three major principles underlying science-based decisionmaking: independence, transparency, and free speech.

Epic, the large electronic health record company, wants to scuttle a rule that requires information to flow freely between EHRs. It should embrace it.

With the government launching a major review of research bureaucracy and methods, James Wilsdon asks: is it the end of the road for impact measures in grant applications?

Will preprinting accelerate the death of predatory journals and facilitate better models for scholarly communication?

CO2-​neutral synthetic fuels are technically feasible today and the best promise for decarbonizing aviation. The right policy instruments could turn promise into reality, writes ETHZ professor.

Where are the white guys when we talk about changing the way Ph.D.s are advised and trained?