A comprehensive review of research into the economic consequences of controversial water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin reveals many studies are of poor quality. Better standards are needed.
Indonesian policymaking is predominantly informed by research with poor theoretical engagement, with no strong tradition of peer review and with legal threats to academic freedom.
Money always seems tight for university scientists. A sociologist conducted hundreds of interviews to see how they think about funding sources and profit motives for basic and applied research.
A team of archaeologists strived to improve the reproducibility of their results, influencing their choices in the field, in the lab and during data analysis.
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.
There is a very real risk that South Africa’s major research projects will stumble and the whole research machine will be shut down by ongoing student protests.
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.
South Africa must examine how science funding is allocated to universities. It also needs to acknowledge that not all universities should be focusing on research and development.
Engagement is not impact, and simple measures such as non-government research income tell us very little about genuine external engagement between universities and industry.
India has invested hugely in to reforming its higher education sector – Australia must view this as an opportunity to capitalise on this growth through partnerships and training schemes.
Previous Vice President of the Academy of Science of South Africa and DSI-NRF SARChI chair in Fungal Genomics, Professor in Genetics, University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria