Send us a link
Leading experts in regulation and ethics at the Oxford Internet Institute, have identified a new type of harm created by LLMs which they believe poses long-term risks to democratic societies and needs to be addressed by creating a new legal duty for LLM providers.
Replacing traditional journals with a more modern solution is not a new idea. Here, the authors propose ways to overcome the social dilemma underlying the decades of inaction.
Cues related to information about open science content and independent verification of author claims were rated as highly important for judging preprint credibility.
For the USA, this study finds, the entire history of science Noble prizes is described on a per capita basis to an astonishing accuracy by a single large productivity boost decaying at a continuously accelerating rate since its peak in 1972.
Analysis suggesting that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.
We wish to answer this question: If you observe a ‘significant’ p -value after doing a single unbiased experiment, what is the probability that your result is a false positive?
How to take into account differences in standards, confidence and bias in assessment panels.
A better understanding of uncertainty may help improve analysis and meta-analysis of data, and help scientists and the public have more realistic expectations of what scientific results imply.
Among the wider scientific community, there is a widespread dissatisfaction with the current level of transparency and reproducibility in published research and, as part of our response to this, we signed up to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines (https://cos.io/top/).The objective of the TOP guidelines is to encourage transparency, openness and reproducibility in science. By developing shared standards for openness across journals, it is hoped to change the current incentive structures to drive researchers' behaviour towards more openness.
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding.
The number of contributing reviewers often outnumbers the authors of publications. We propose the R-index as a simple way to quantify scientists' contributions as reviewers.
