Send us a link
This article advocates for a closer study of the forms of citizenship nurtured among individual participants in citizen science (CS) projects by highlighting some salient features of CS in China.
A study of the use of curricula vitae for competitive funding decisions in science suggests that bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.
What legal, as well as ethical and social, factors will ultimately shape the contours of open science? Should all restrictions be fought, or should some be allowed to persist, and if so, in what form?
Can word patterns from grant abstracts predict National Science Foundation (NSF) funding? The data describe a clear relationship between word patterns and funding magnitude: Grant abstracts that are longer than the average abstract, contain fewer common words, and are written with more verbal certainty receive more money.
By forming a pool of funding applicants who have minimal qualification levels and then selecting randomly within that pool, funding agencies could avoid biases, disagreement and other limitations of peer review.
As open access (OA) to publications continues to gather momentum, we should continuously question whether it is moving in the right direction.
3 case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open.
A survey of 2,955 readers of 40 randomly selected science blogs.
Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts.
Using the “#arseniclife” controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review.
This research investigates the relationship between open science and public engagement.
An analysis of the essential tension identifies institutional forces that sustain tradition and suggestions of policy interventions to foster innovation.
It is not an insult when others try to replicate our research—it is standard science
Scientific dishonesty essentially results from an incentive problem.
The Web has greatly reduced the barriers to entry for new journals and other platforms for communicating scientific output, and the number of journals continues to multiply. This leaves readers and authors with the daunting cognitive challenge of navigating the literature and discerning contributions that are both relevant and significant.
