Academic journals rely on peer review to support editors in making decisions about what to publish.
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.
Peer review takes time – around seven to eight hours per paper if done properly.
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.
From human 'gills' to reproducing rock, evidence hasn't always pointed scientists in the right direction.
Sea ice off of East Antarctica’s Princess Astrid Coast.
Geospatial data offers a powerful new way to see the world. But these high-tech images can be misleading or incomplete.
Alone in the crowd, but not lonely.
Recent news reports suggest that the US is experiencing a loneliness epidemic. But the research is a bit more complicated.
It’s impossible to separate science from wonder.
Let's get emotional about science. Not just to celebrate it, but because that's how to do it properly.
It may take time for a tiny step forward to show its worth.
Scientists are rewarded with funding and publications when they come up with innovative findings. But in the midst of a 'reproducibility crisis,' being new isn't the only thing to value about research.
Many scientific studies aren’t holding up in further tests.
A and N photography/Shutterstock.com
Scientists have a big problem: Many psychological studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Is it time to redefine statistical significance?
Advocating for facts and evidence at the March for Science in California earlier this year.
Scientists typically stay out of public policy debates, but an academic makes the case that they need to push back against politicians who distort research.
Opening up data and materials helps with research transparency.
REDPIXEL.PL via Shutterstock.com
Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.
Can an algorithmic method for analyzing published research help zero in on reality?
Researchers need to be able to draw conclusions based on previously published studies in their field. A new aggregation method synthesizes prior findings and may help reveal more of the big picture.
What’s the p-value for that happening?
This is the second part in a series on how we edit science, looking at hypothesis testing, the problem of p-hacking and how the peer review process works.
This is the first part in a series on how we edit science, looking at what science is and how it works.
Online tools are changing the way psychology research is conducted.
Tools like Amazon's Mechanical Turk allow psychology researchers to recruit test subjects from around the world. But the system can also be exploited.
There wouldn’t be statues acclaiming Darwin and his theory if it couldn’t stand up to decades of testing.
In science, the word 'theory' has a very specific meaning that's easy for nonscientists to misunderstand or misconstrue. Here's what a theory must withstand to be accepted by the scientific community.
The case for neoclassicism in science.
Experiment design affects the quality of the results.
IAEA Seibersdorf Historical Images
Embracing more rigorous scientific methods would mean getting science right more often than we currently do. But the way we value and reward scientists makes this a challenge.
Science works in ways that reflect our rationality.
There's a big difference between science and pseudoscience. But if people don't understand how science works in the first place, it's very easy for them to fall for the pseudoscience.
Overfishing can teach us valuable lessons about ecosystem resilience.
Large-scale natural experiments such as oil spills, tsunamis and climate change are things you wouldn't want to do on purpose. But that doesn't mean they're not scientifically useful experiments too.
A plague, or just an artefact?
How flawed citation practices can perpetuate scientific ideas even before they've been fully established as true.