Send us a link
A new paper suggests that positive feedback in funding may be a key mechanism through which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few extremely successful scholars, but also that the origins of emergent distinction in scientists' careers may be of an arbitrary nature.
Article suggesting that positive feedback in funding may be a key mechanism through which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few extremely successful scholars, but also that the origins of emergent distinction in scientists' careers may be of an arbitrary nature. (The article is closed access and requires a subscription to view the full text legally.)
In an uncertain world, more governments are asking universities to help develop weapons. That’s a threat to the culture and conscience of researchers.
Obviously peer review should not be abandoned entirely, but it is time to recognise the need for a separate category of highly innovative research with appropriate funding.
For a period of almost 3 years, the OpenAIRE2020 project has run - on behalf of the European Commission - a pilot to fund post-grant Open Access publication of research outputs arising from projects financed under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7).
Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns. Too much innovation veneration! One driver of the replication crisis is our culture’s growing obsession with “innovation.” As technology historians Lee Vinsel and Andrew Russell state in their influential Aeon essay Hail the Maintainers: “Entire societies have come to talk about innovation as if it were an inherently desirable value."
We are entering a new era - the Impact Era - where increasingly philanthropists are grounding their generosity in decisions focused on having a real social impact. And, in response, nonprofit organizations are learning to refocus their strategies to maximize that impact.
13 European associations of universities release a statement in which they call upon the EU institutions to double the investment in research, innovation and education, in the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework.
New head of Science Europe says he hopes for experiments with grant lottery system and even a basic income for researchers.
No agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of 25 NIH grant applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations.
Given significant changes in publishing research article over the past dozen or so years, the Wellcome Trust thinks the time is right to look again at its OA policy.
Canada's 2018 budget includes almost Can$4 billion (US$3.1 billion) in new funding for science over the next five years. This is in contrast to the Can$1 billion in new science funding contained in last year's budget - almost none of which went to basic research.
The Open Philanthropy Project’s mission is to give as effectively as we can and share our findings openly so that anyone can build on our work. Through research and grantmaking, we hope to learn how to make philanthropy go especially far in terms of improving lives.
