Send us a link
The move comes amid concerns over China's influence on Australian campuses, and after major cybersecurity breaches at one institution.
By examining publication records of scientists from four disciplines, the authors show that coauthoring a paper with a top-cited scientist early in one's career predicts lasting increases in career success, especially for researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions.
Nature's survey of more than 6,000 graduate students reveals the turbulent nature of doctoral research. The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention.
Anxiety and depression among graduate students seems to be on the rise. Systemic change is needed to halt an ongoing crisis.
The practice was probably used to improve the children's chances of securing a university place.
Analysis finds female-led papers are more likely to be rejected, and less likely to be cited, than those with male corresponding authors.
Discover the world's best science and medicine | Nature.com
A century and a half has seen momentous changes in science. But evidence and transparency are more important than ever before.
With better questions, many reproducibility problems will fall away, says Paul Smaldino.
Data from conventional sources cannot fully measure progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Here the authors present a roadmap describing how citizen-science data can integrate traditional data and make a significant contribution in support of the SDGs agenda.
Container platforms let researchers run each other's software - and check the results.
Can science continue to fulfil its social contract and to reach new horizons by advancing on the same footing into the future? Or does something need to shift?
How did data get so big? Through political, social and economic interests, shows Sabina Leonelli.
Researchers share tips for transforming your group with open data science and teamwork.
From all too scarce, to professionalized, the ethics of research is now everybody's business, argues Sarah Franklin.
Students must learn that a doctoral degree isn't for everyone - and that not doing one might be a better option.
The efforts of young researchers to fight the perverse incentives that dominate science right now are all the more impressive because these scientists are at the most vulnerable point of their careers.
Peer review process helps funders make decisions, but researchers say it is lacks transparency and takes up too much of their time.
Biological advances have repeatedly changed who we think we are.
Publishers, reviewers and other members of the scientific community must fight science's preference for positive results - for the benefit of all.
Wellcome is right to call out hyper-competitiveness in research and question the focus on excellence. But other funders must follow its move.
Readers say they have been asked to reference seemingly superfluous studies after peer review.
Organs-on-a-chip and other technologies are becoming reliable models for testing drug efficacy and toxicity.
The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything?
The Pulitzer prizewinner shares his advice for pleasing readers, editors and yourself.
Transparent evaluations of FAIRness are increasingly required by a wide range of stakeholders, from scientists to publishers, funding agencies and policy makers. We propose a scalable, automatable framework to evaluate digital resources that encompasses measurable indicators, open source tools, and participation guidelines, which come together to accommodate domain relevant community-defined FAIR assessments. The components of the framework are: (1) Maturity Indicators - community-authored specifications that delimit a specific automatically-measurable FAIR behavior; (2) Compliance Tests - small Web apps that test digital resources against individual Maturity Indicators; and (3) the Evaluator, a Web application that registers, assembles, and applies community-relevant sets of Compliance Tests against a digital resource, and provides a detailed report about what a machine "sees" when it visits that resource. We discuss the technical and social considerations of FAIR assessments, and how this translates to our community-driven infrastructure. We then illustrate how the output of the Evaluator tool can serve as a roadmap to assist data stewards to incrementally and realistically improve the FAIRness of their resources.
