Introducing Metadata for Peer Review
The new exposure of peer review information through its public API provides opportunities for discoverability, analysis, and integration of tools.
Send us a link
The new exposure of peer review information through its public API provides opportunities for discoverability, analysis, and integration of tools.
Preprints are one of the fastest growing types of content in Crossref. The growth may well be approximately 30% for the past 2 years (compared to article growth of 2-3% for the same period).
Swedish researchers can now publish their articles in Frontiers’ Open Access journals through a simplified process that covers publishing fees, thanks to a national agreement announced today between Frontiers and the National Library of Sweden.
A randomized experiment of NIH R01 grant reviews finds no evidence that White male PIs receive evaluations that are any better than those of PIs from the other social categories.
New national guidelines spell out punishment for plagiarism, fabrication of data and research conclusions, ghostwriting and peer review manipulation.
A discussion of how trust in expertise is placed or refused, highlighting the affective dimension of epistemic trust, and discussing the danger of a 'context collapse' in digital communication.
Only about 5% of the institutions made explicit mention of open access in their guidelines, and, in several of those few cases, the mention was done to call attention to the potentially problematic nature of these journals.
In an era when untestable ideas such as the multiverse hold sway, Michela Massimi defends science from those who think it hopelessly unmoored from physical reality.
The assumption that the publication of an article in a high-impact factor, indexed journal somehow adds value to international science is a collective illusion - one that is unfortunately shared by funding agencies, institutions and researchers. This illusion - which serves as an excuse to delegate the evaluation of science to for-profit companies and anonymous reviewers for the sake of false objectivity - costs taxpayers dearly.
The “Alexander Friedrich Schläfli Prize” of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT) is one of the oldest prizes in Switzerland. Since the first awarding in 1866, 108 young talents in different natural science disciplines have been distinguished.
A unique WWII-era programme in the US, allowed US publishers to reprint exact copies of German-owned science books, to explore how copyrights affect follow-on science. This artificial removal of copyright barriers led to a 25% decline in prices and a 67% increase in citations.
A group of renowned economists and academics from Spain have signed a document promising not to appear as a speaker at any academic event or round-table discussion if there are no women experts present as well.
Men were more likely to secure health research grants than women in Canadian study.
In June 2017, PSI was made aware of allegations that members of its staff had submitted an article containing aspects of scientific misconduct to a scientific journal. A preliminary review by experts showed that the allegations raised were solid.
Many biologists are still reluctant to submit preprints, in part out of concern that doing so will allow others to “scoop” their work and undermine their chances of publication in a prestigious journal. I would like to rebut that concern, among others, and to share our research group’s first experience submitting a preprint manuscript.
Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.
Something strange began happening with a U.S. Department of Education loan program known as Parent PLUS, under which parents borrow money from the government to finance their children’s education.
Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints, based on contributions from the Knowledge Exchange Preprints Advisory Group.
The 2-day eLife Innovation Sprint was aimed at bringing together 'computer people' and 'science people' in order to create novel tools for open science.
In this era of billionaires and unequal funding, where is research going? And perhaps more importantly, how will our changing resources affect the training, success, and diversity of the scientists of our future?
Some new tools from the Open Access Button.
On the basis of a survey of 7103 active faculty researchers in nine fields, this paper examines the extent to which scientists disclose prepublication results, and when they do, why?
P Shravan Kumar aka Akiraa launched Research Funders, a platform to connect scientists with potential donors who can help fund their research and projects.
It’s not hard to get excited over money that will support imaging of the Earth, or the Atlas of Living Australia. But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.
Universities say they are taking steps to promote BAME staff and address the attainment gap, but progress is far too slow
Visual exploration of projects within the OpenAIRE database.
Neuroscientist Caitlin Vander Weele gives us a crash course on academic Twitter in our new blog post. She highlights the benefits of using social media as a scientist and gives tips on how to optimize the experience.
In order to take steps towards the goal of immediate open access by 2026 set by the Swedish Government, the Bibsam Consortium has after 20 years decided not to renew the agreement with the scientific publisher Elsevier.
The Manhattan Project, the program that developed the first nuclear weapons during World War II, worked out of three purpose-built cities in Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington state. A new exhibition considers their design and legacy.