It’s not good if women’s research isn’t in the library stacks.
Redd Angelo on Unsplash
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.
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.
Research findings are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, many of which charge universities subscription fees.
Universities in New Zealand spent close to US$15 million on subscriptions to just four publishers in 2016, data that was only released following a request to the Ombudsman.
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.
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.
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.
The number of predatory scientific journals has exploded in recent years.
A leading website that monitored predatory open access journals has closed. This will make it harder to keep tabs on this corrosive force within science.
More is less in the world of research publications.
Desktop image via www.shutterstock.com.
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.
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.
Can new ideas break through preconceived notions?
Light bulb image via www.shutterstock.com.
The very goal of science, to discover the new and unknown, is hampered by any outdated personal beliefs scientists hold.
Scientists themselves may be the key to finding the right balance.
Scales image via www.shutterstock.com.
The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.
Extra, extra! The embargo’s lifted, read all about it.
Newspapers image via www.shutterstock.com.
Sometimes big research news bypasses the usual scientific publishing process. Here's why that's not good for scientists or the public.
Indonesian academic institutions produce few evidence-based analyses on social issues.
Indonesia should cultivate a culture of peer-review to support academics produce basic social research, essential in creating good policies in the world's fourth most populous country.
Weighing the evidence.
Meta-analyses that combine many different studies are the gold standard for medical evidence. But they are only as good research they examine.
There is amazing research and knowledge coming out of Africa – you just need to know where to look.
African research is largely invisible, kept in the shadows by publishing barriers and structural obstacles. A platform built in Brazil and rolled out across the developing world could be the solution.
Data needs to be an open book if science is to be made more reliable.
If we want the best possible research, it's not just the journal articles that ought to be openly available to all, but the data behind them as well.
Run a study again and again – should the results hit the same bull’s-eye every time?
The field of psychology is trying to absorb a recent big study that was able to replicate only 36 out of 100 major research papers. That finding is an issue, but maybe not for the reason you think.
What does it mean if the majority of what’s published in journals can’t be reproduced?
Researchers from around the globe tried to replicate 100 published psychology studies. They were successful on only 36.
Enough with the long author lists - we are running out of space!
Replacing authors on scientific papers with projects could be one way to tackle the increasing numbers of contributors.
Do all authors listed on any published work actually contribute to the research?
The research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. But how do we know that all authors listed on a publication have actually been involved…