Does Incentive Provision Increase the Quality of Peer Review? An Experimental Study
Although peer review is crucial for innovation and experimental discoveries in science, it is poorly understood in scientific terms. Discovering its true dynamics and exploring adjustments which improve the commitment of everyone involved could benefit scientific development for all disciplines and consequently increase innovation in the economy and the society.
Network Effects on Editorial Decisions in Four Computer Science Journals
A study that examines the publication bias due to authors’ reputation shows that more reputed authors were less likely to be rejected with negative reviews, and that journal-specificities were important but never completely reversed this outcome.
The Distribution of P-values in Medical Research Articles Suggested Selective Reporting Associated with Statistical Significance
Published P-values provide a window into the global enterprise of medical research. The aim of this study was to use the distribution of published P-values to estimate the relative frequencies of null and alternative hypotheses and to seek irregularities suggestive of publication bias.
Work Organization and Mental Health Problems in PhD students
Research policy observers are increasingly concerned about the potential impact of current academic working conditions on mental health, particularly in PhD students. One in two PhD students experiences psychological distress; one in three is at risk of a common psychiatric disorder.
Why We Should Worry Less About Predatory Publishers and More About the Quality of Research and Training at Our Academic Institutions
While we need to alert researchers to the presence of predatory journals, we should mostly put our efforts into transforming the academic research environment and reward systems, raising standards and developing true collegiality both within and between institutions.
Paper showing that doubling the word frequency of an average abstract increases citations by 0.70% and that journals which publish papers whose abstracts are shorter and contain more frequently used words receive slightly more citations per paper.
The non-rivalness of scientific knowledge has traditionally underpinned its status as a public good. This publication models science as a contribution game in which spillovers differentially benefit contributors over non-contributors.