The idea of “reanalysis” needs to be rethought, if recent examples are any indication of what this trend could do to science.
A new poll finds that trust in scientists and science journalists is fairly low. But are the two questions separable when it comes to the general public?
Revisiting the subject of social media and scientific research–have we made much progress in the last few years?
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about not-for-profit governance, and the broader concept of the value of expertise.
While we tend to think of publishing as an attempt to make objectively true comments about the quality of research, in fact publishing is driven by personality. Services that try to eliminate such personality are likely to see personality reassert itself in other ways.
The era of Big Data raises many questions about why and how data should or can be preserved, who should lead the effort, and what the cost-benefit equation currently is.
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about how not-for-profit governance may be a root cause of middling results and blunted strategies.
Science begins from a simple premise, then gets really complicated. It’s good to return to the basics, courtesy of this brief primer from the legendary Richard Feynman.
Chart of the Day: How Science Stacks Up in the US Budget — from an Atlantic article entitled, “The Innovation Nation vs. the Warfare-Welfare State“:
Hitting the wallet, watch, and workload makes more sense, but Science Exchange still has some details to iron out.
I knew there was something they weren’t telling me!
“Building apps is not all unicorns and rainbows.” Publishers should take a practical, iterative, and collaborative approach to delivering content.
Scientists seem uninterested in participating in social media offerings, as the rewards offered are generally of insufficient value to warrant the effort required. Instead of just hoping that scientists will suddenly see the value in your product, why not offer incentives for participation?
A recent study points out that science blogs are failing to provide much in the way of community outreach and education to the non-scientist public. Is this really a failure, or is it an unrealistic expectation?
So far, Web 2.0 tools for scientists have failed to gain much traction with researchers. Is this because they’re tools for talking about science rather than tools for doing science?