Reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true.

A comparison of the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.

A look at novel methods to improve measurement of innovation and growth in the modern economy.

A review focusing on how gender inequality manifests and unfolds throughout the academic career life course.

Since the 1950s, the number of doctorate recipients has risen dramatically in the United States. In this paper, we investigate whether the longevity of doctorate recipients’ publication careers has changed.

How can interdisciplinary research proposals be more effectively assessed through peer review?

A study of postdoctoral career outcomes at the University of California, San Francisco.

Complex, diverse rationales require nuanced policies: evidence suggests a need for increased attention to career planning among students, their mentors, graduate schools, and funders

An analysis reveals that the text contents of the scientific papers generally change very little from their pre-print to final published versions.

This essay unifies key epistemological concepts in a consistent mathematical framework built on two postulates: 1-information is finite; 2-knowledge is information compression.

A narrative review of empirical evidence

A discussion of the common underpinning problems with the scientific and data analytic practices and point to tools and behaviors that can be implemented to reduce the problems with published scientific results.

A 40-year longitudinal cross-validation of citations, downloads, and peer review in astrophysics

This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers containing inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data.

Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites

Unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them.

Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research

Towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials

An evidence-based review

Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively.

Big-name scientists may end up stifling progress in their fields

Ideally, in a reviewing process, it is generally easier for referees to make faster and more reliable decisions for high quality papers, which ideally and on average will later attract more citations. Therefore, it is possible that the editorial delay time—the time between dates of submission and acceptance or publication—is correlated to the number of received citations, as has been weakly confirmed by previous studies.

Study shows that graduate students’ funding mechanisms affect their early-career job choices.

A book on how to be a scientist the modern way.

Cutting down on long-distance air travel is the best way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by the scientific community.

In this paper we explore the effectiveness of selected research and innovation policies among EU countries.

On the democratization of science via the Internet and the dramatic change in the communication of data and in their interpretation.

This advisory report is about open science, and more specifically about access to scholarly publications (open access) and research data (open research data). What impact is this likely to have for the world of science itself, for society and for business? What level of openness is publicly desirable and what does this imply for government policy?

Citation counts are not purely a reflection of scientific merit and the impact factor is, in fact, auto-correlated.

Selected Writings on Open Access, 2002–2011, MIT Press, 2016