Recent hoax papers in humanities don't show what they claim, but need to be taken seriously.
It’s hard work, but reading scientific literature can be very valuable.
Scientific articles are the way in which scientists communicate their results to their peers.
Surely a socialist.
Politicians on the right surely wipe with their left hand; and vice versa?
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.
Predatory publishers are vultures feeding on academics’ worries about output and incentives.
If there's a general sense that academic publication is about knowledge dissemination rather than meeting performance targets, academics and universities become less vulnerable to predatory journals.
Locking articles away behind a paywall stifles access.
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.
Data shows gender disparities in networking.
The low share of women revealed in this data is problematic for two reasons: a lack of diversity, and what it shows about women's participation in the social network of informal collaboration.
Research must be carefully scrutinised by peer reviewers to ensure its veracity.
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.
Women are less likely to be published in scientific journals.
Women can often draw attention to dimensions of thinking that their male perspective may miss. But this will only work if they are in positions that allow them to lead and drive the research agenda.
When academics are pushed to publish and to compete, teaching and research can take a back seat.
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.
The scientific refereeing process can be tedious, time-consuming and isn’t very rewarding.
There are major systemic problems associated with peer review that are negatively affecting scientific credibility.
Getting input from well-connected academics and researchers is crucial to a paper’s scientific impact.
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.
Research shows that Wikipedia is one of the most read sources of medical information by the general public across the world.
Medical entries on Wikipedia are widely consulted across the world. Doctors and medical researchers need to make efforts to ensure the content on the online collaborative encyclopedia is accurate.
When several South African universities merged, it was hoped this would improve access and equality. It had the opposite effect.
Ancient fermentation techniques are an example of African chemistry in action.
Knowledge is power. If you own it, you can control those without it. Since so much knowledge about Africa doesn't sit on the continent, it's apparent that Africa lacks power in this regard.
Sampling is a powerful scientific tool - when it’s used honestly.
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.
Professor Peter Higgs, joint winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics.
The unavoidable regime of publication pervades contemporary academic life across the world. While presented as a virtuous thing, it can actually suffocate the academic profession.
What is the best way to return ‘Africa’ to African Studies?
African Studies remains a colonised space rife with misrepresentation, homogenisation and essentialising about Africa.
More medical experts should contribute to Wikipedia to ensure its health pages are accurate.
The academic medical community largely views Wikipedia with suspicion. But some traditional journals are starting to take the site more seriously – and some journals work very closely with it.
Sci-Hub, a free online repository of academic articles, is the subject of a battle at the heart of open access.