Scholars love to hate the journal impact factor, but how flawed is it?

A group of fourteen authors came together in February 2018 at the TIB (German National Library of Science and Technology) in Hannover to create an open, living handbook on Open Science training.

5 technologies under development at the IBM Research labs.

How chance determines h-index’s outcome.

An experimental tool for self-publishing on the peer-to-peer web

When it comes to impact assessment, there are things that are easy to measure, and then there are things that we care about. On the divide through the examples of two recent online initiatives from the Canadian federal government.

Amid the sea of male faces -- 37 of them -- was a lone woman, her face partially obscured. She was listed as "not identified."

Accenture study shows 62% of teenage girls regret not studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects for longer.

The drug albuterol can provide fast-acting relief to the wheezing and shortness of breath that often accompany an asthma attack but it often fails minority children.

Researcher-centric communication, collaboration and attribution platform powered by blockchain - with proof-of-existence and real-time, permanent, citing for all scientific and scholarly works.

After Jeffrey Beall took down his list of predatory journals in January 2017 in order to avoid continued harassment and threats, a small group of scholars and information professionals decided to anonymously rebuild and resurrect that list.

A series of talks on robust research practices in psychology and the biomedical sciences, held in Oxford in 2017. Organized by Dorothy Bishop, Ana Todorovic, Caroline Nettekoven and Verena Heise.

A free and open way to track the online buzz around scholarly articles, by Jason Priem.

To attract more girls to study Stem subjects at university, we need to tackle the stereotypes they are exposed to early on.

China produces the most scientific articles, but lags on other measures. 

Information about research metrics across disciplines, including how each metric is calculated, where you can find it, and how each should (and should not) be applied.

Editors and peer reviewers impose tougher standards on women. This is evident from the fact that female-authored economics papers take around six months more to go through the review process than male-authored papers. As a result, female academics come to experience peer review as a much tougher process and those who progress on the career ladder adjust their expectations about what is required. Female researchers publish less than their male peers do but what they publish is much more readable and better written.