Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain “dumb luck.”
Peer review, journal reputation, and fast publication were selected by Canadian researchers as the top three factors in deciding where to submit their manuscripts, trumping open access, article-level metrics, and mobile access, a recent study reports.
When novel, newsworthy results are discovered to be wrong, is that still news?
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 a post from 2011 that called for evidence for a better understanding of access to the research literature.
Publication rewards productive scientists but has the unintended consequences of isolating scholars, reducing knowledge transfer and steering scientists away from engaging in policy and the press.
A review of the literature shows that access conditions are getting better, not worse. So, why do we hear just the opposite?
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
Reputation — fragile, cumulative, and indirect — is the reward of science. Direct compensation to motivate specific behaviors is a dangerous proposal.