Scientific results are being rushed out quicker than ever to fight coronavirus. Here’s what you need to know about preprints, peer review and the difference between the two.
The official advice is to stay at least 1.5m apart from someone else when exercising. One study has challenged that and says we need to move further apart. But does the study stack up?
Researchers, scientific journals and health agencies are doing everything they can to speed up coronavirus research. The combination of pace and panic during this pandemic is causing mistakes.
Across science, only around half of published results can be successfully replicated. But while this is a serious problem, the proposed public audit looks like a political bid to cast doubt on science.
There’s peer review – and then there’s peer review. With more knowledge you can dive in a little deeper and make a call about how reliable a science paper really is.
Key areas of focus for tweaking peer review include making journal editors more directive in the process, rewarding reviewers, and improving accountability of editors, reviewers and authors.
If journal editors fail to retract or properly flag data revealed as inaccurate, they leave open the possibility that it’ll be cited for years to come.
Women are underrepresented in academic science. New research finds the problem is even worse in terms of who authors high-profile journal articles – bad news for women’s career advancement.
In our institutions of higher education and our research labs, scholars first produce, then buy back, their own content. With the costs rising and access restricted, something’s got to give.
Scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. Peer review filters the good science from the bad.
More must be done to develop mechanisms based on intrinsic motivations of committed, quality academics. It’s important to limit the harms currently being caused by rent seeking.
The scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback – particularly if the comment came from a well-connected academic.