Send us a link
This essay traces the history of refereeing at specialist scientific journals and at funding bodies and shows that it was only in the late twentieth century that peer review came to be seen as a process central to scientific practice
A paper arguing that the uncritical pursuit of reproducibility as an overarching epistemic value is misleading and potentially damaging to scientific advancement.
This essay, although hopefully accessible to everyone, is the most thorough breakdown of the study and written for those who are already somewhat familiar with the problems of ideologically-motivated scholarship, radical skepticism and cultural constructivism.
In the 1990s, the Internet offered a horizon from which to imagine what society could become, promising autonomy and self-organization next to redistribution of wealth and collectivized means of production. While the former was in line with the dominant ideology of freedom, the latter ran contrary to the expanding enclosures in capitalist globalization.
Daniel Sarewitz on the impossibility - and the necessity - of distinguishing science from nonscience.
Big technology companies seem to be waging a war on humankind’s long-standing intellectual tradition, according to author Franklin Foer, who shows us how to fight back.
If scientists avoid discussing the topic candidly, racist theories will fill the vacuum.
It’s wreaking havoc in universities and jeopardizing the progress of research.
Alexandra Elbakyan runs Sci-Hub, a website with over 64 million academic papers available for free to anybody in the world. (Long read ...)
Algorithms made him a Wall Street billionaire. His new research center helps scientists mine data for the common good.
The traditional journal publishing system, the recent open access models of journal publishing as an evolving phenomenon, the nature and extent of open access as a disruptive innovation, and the implications for key stakeholders.
It might style itself as a grassroots movement but citizen science is little more than a cheap land-grab by big business.
As a young social psychologist, she played by the rules and won big: an influential study, a viral TED talk, a prestigious job at Harvard. Then, suddenly, the rules changed.
Imagine a connected online web of scientific knowledge… tightly integrated with a scientific social web that directs scientists’ attention where it is most valuable, releasing enormous collaborative potential.
Staid and conformist, science risks losing its creative spark. Does it need more mavericks, or are they part of the problem?
How are scholars and researchers working to restore confidence in peer-reviewed science?
As researchers prepare for the science march, it's worth noting that the flip-side of Trump's anti-science is a sort of alt-science appeasement on the left.
Academic publishing is becoming more about establishing a pecking order and less about pursuing knowledge.
Bubbling beakers, blazing Bunsen burners, boiling broths and a book.
“”Imagination is more important than knowledge.” - Albert Einstein
Life was long thought to obey its own set of rules. But as simple systems show signs of lifelike behavior, scientists are arguing about whether this apparent.
Are we leaving behind the age of statistics, and entering a new age of big data controlled by private companies?
Do journals do a good job of finding appropriate peers to review papers? Are editors always in the best place to decide the fate of a paper based on a severely limited sampling of peer reports?
