In South Africa, open access publishing should be mandatory and publicly funded data generated by universities, should be freely available.
Science is not the absolute truth. Scientific findings are the beginning, not the end, of the quest for truth.
There's peer review – and then there's peer review. With more knowledge you can dive in a little deeper and make a call about how reliable a science paper really is.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
The only place to find the Golden Age of Science is in the future, but we need some help in getting there.
If journal editors fail to retract or properly flag data revealed as inaccurate, they leave open the possibility that it'll be cited for years to come.
Women are underrepresented in academic science. New research finds the problem is even worse in terms of who authors high-profile journal articles – bad news for women's career advancement.
In our institutions of higher education and our research labs, scholars first produce, then buy back, their own content. With the costs rising and access restricted, something's got to give.
How is a scientific article accepted for publication in an academic journal? What is the role of peer reviewers? Where does the system go astray?
Scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. Peer review filters the good science from the bad.
More must be done to develop mechanisms based on intrinsic motivations of committed, quality academics. It's important to limit the harms currently being caused by rent seeking.
A study that suggested Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was more psychological than physical has been debunked. How did the data get doctored?
There are major systemic problems associated with peer review that are negatively affecting scientific credibility.
Everything you need to know about predatory publishers.
The scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback – particularly if the comment came from a well-connected academic.
The traditional mode of publishing scientific research faces much criticism – primarily for being too slow and sometimes shoddily done. Maybe fewer publications of higher quality is the way forward.
When research and commerce become entangled, consumers are the losers.
There is mounting evidence to show scientists and researchers why public engagement is worth their while.
Peer review is a crucial part of the academic publication system. It is also a critical part of the hiring and evaluation process. What's the problem with peer review?
Some water researchers are ignoring the evidence offered by sampling if it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. But science should always be honest and open.