Send us a link
The American Sociological Association is starting a conversation to include “public communication” -- work often largely ignored -- in the assessment of a scholar’s contributions. Why does it matter?
Openly discussing the history of science, where is has gone wrong, and the incredible efforts individual scientists go to uncover fraud should inspire confidence in its self-correcting nature.
New studies on the quality of published research shows we could be wasting billions of dollars a year on bad science, to the neglect of good science projects.
Women have come a long way in science, but plenty of work remains. After all, gender bias in science doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Computers are getting better and better at the jobs that previously made sense for researchers to outsource to citizen scientists. But don't worry: there's still a role for people in these projects.
In the race to apply for research funding, writing statements about future impact can feel like a charade.
Where once scientists used to be solitary creatures, today science is a highly collaborative affair, and the latest research in ecology is no exception.
Scientific publishing has undergone a revolution in recent years - largely due to the internet. And it shows no sign of letting up as a growing number of countries attempt to ensure that research papers are made freely available. Publishers are struggling to adapt their business models to the new challenges.
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has gone to a researcher who spent her entire career researching traditional Chinese medicine...
The lead paper describing Homo naledi has been viewed more than 170,000 times in one week.
We need to ensure the reward and support structures in academia promote the best practices rather than corner cutting.
Contrary to what some think, the battle against sexism in STEM has not been won, let alone reversed in favor of women.
Many academics have internalised the pressure to police disciplinary boundaries, and keep their heads down and in their faculties.
What if I told you that half of the studies published in scientific journals today - the ones upon which news coverage of medical advances is often based - won't hold up under scrutiny?
Working longer hours leads to poorer productivity. If you’re trying to impress people and move up the ranks, the solution isn’t to work longer, but to work smarter.
Investigating fraud is hard work, and it is easier for journal editors to ignore the problem and perpetuate the myth that peer review of trial reports ensures their scientific quality.
Enough with the long author lists - we are running out of space.
In academia, strong hierarchies and nepotism compound problems associated with biases.
The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?
In recent years science has entered a crisis of trust. The results of many scientific experiments appear to be surprisingly hard to reproduce, while mistakes have highlighted flaws in the peer review system.
Professors issue warning over obsession with performance management and research excellence.
The research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. But how do we know that all authors listed on a publication have actually been involved in the research?
While The Conversation is built around a journalistic model, there is a big growth in online, open-access journals each with different approaches to peer review.
Problems and limitations of the traditional and alternative peer review methods.
Overly optimistic investments in scientific fields, research methods and technologies generate episodes comparable to those experienced by financial markets prior to crashing.
