A Cross-Sectional Study

A new survey shoots down the idea that early-career researchers aresomehow more likely to be digital natives and therefore more apt to conduct computational social science than those whose PhDs were issued more than a decade ago.

Switzerland, Singapore and the United States remain the three world’s most competitive economies.

This article describes some of the ways that identifiers can help to unlock the potential of open research.

This study investigates whether bias with single-blind review is greatest in a setting of author or institutional prestige.

Can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency?

Current trends indicate that research is starting to become a preserve of the privileged.

Concerns about data sharing patient-level data from clinical trials.

Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding.

This paper presents a brief overview of emerging policies to open up access to research data in the United States.

This Ipsos MORI report presents the findings of a 2016 survey commissioned by the Office for Life Sciences to understand current public awareness of, and attitudes towards, the use of animals in research.

The tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret.

A nature Outlook collection of articles on "Precision Medicine"

This study estimates the development of hybrid open access (OA), i.e. articles published openly on the web within subscription-access journals.

John P.A. Ioannidis argues that the production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions.

Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs.

It is useful to consider the trajectory of both scientific and literary publishing on the grid-group plane defined by Mary Douglas which arranges attitudes along two axes: one ranging from the hierarchical to the egalitarian, and the other spanning individualistic to communitarian. I would contend that, in both cases, there has been a move from the hierarchical/communitarian quadrant towards the egalitarian/individualistic zone.

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years.

Citation metrics are very influential and their normalization is a contentious issue. Each normalization approach has advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper use of these metrics.

This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.

We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.

A dataset that is the result of content mining 167,318 published psychology articles for statistical test results.

Peer review is widely viewed as an essential step for ensuring scientific quality of a work and is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. In this work we investigate the feasibility of a tool capable of generating fake reviews for a given scientific paper automatically.

A contribution to the open innovation, open science, open to the world agenda 2016.

Metrics derived from Twitter and other social media are increasingly used to estimate the broader social impacts of scholarship. Such efforts, however, may produce highly misleading results, as the entities that participate in conversations about science on these platforms are largely unknown.

Novel breakthroughs in research can have a dramatic impact on scientific discovery but face some distinct disadvantages in getting wider recognition.

Approximately one-fifth of papers with supplementary Excel gene lists contain erroneous gene name conversions.

All software used for the analysis should be either carefully documented or, better yet, openly shared and directly accessible to others.

This Community Page presents an open-access platform, protocols.io ( https://www.protocols.io/ ), which enables collaborative sharing and discovery of state-of-the-art research methods.

Badges that acknowledge open practices significantly increase sharing of reported data and materials, as well as subsequent accessibility, correctness, usability, and completeness.