The Problem With Promoting ‘Gold Standard Science’

Opinion | Branding scientific research with a simplified label risks misleading the public and harming scientific literacy.

Why we don’t really know what the public thinks about science

Measuring trust isn’t enough. Furthering knowledge about the institutions and norms of science is the best way to build credibility.

ATScience 2026 Agenda - ATScience Notes

Join us for a full-day of scientific explorations on the AT Protocol

ATScience Ecosystem Map

An interactive map of research applications, infrastructure and communities built on AT Protocol.

ReScience organization

Reproducible Science is good. Replicated Science is better. - ReScience organization

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a statement that denounces the practice of correlating the journal impact factor to the merits of a specific scientist's contributions. Also according to this statement, this practice creates biases and inaccuracies when appraising scientific research. It also states that the impact factor is not to be used as a substitute "measure of the quality of individual research articles, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions".

Hypercerts — Collective Intelligence for Funding Impact

Hypercerts create shared context—evidence, expert input, and community trust—for better resource allocation.

Where Should Science Go Next

Where Should Science Go Next? Prashant Garg, April 2026 Every researcher has to choose what to work on next. Science has formal procedures for judging answers, but no comparable procedure for comparing questions. Einstein said in 1918 at Max Planck's sixtieth birthday: "There is no logical path t...

Dark-Moneyed Denialists Are Running 'Fixing Science' Symposium of Doubt

The “Fixing Science” symposium, which is hosted by the National Association of Scholars and kicks off today in Oakland, California, includes credible speakers who want to improve some areas of science hurt by the use of poor statistical methods or making irreproducible claims. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by people who have often cast doubt on mainstream climate, environmental, and health sciences. For […]

Shareouts from ATScience 2026 in Vancouver - ATScience Notes

Since when do science conferences have such wild energy?

Faster science, penalties in evaluation, and concerns on quality and impact: Researchers’ use and perceptions of preprints

The preprint ecosystem has expanded rapidly over the past decade, fundamentally altering science communication. Yet, the scholarly community’s attitudes toward this shift remain underexplored. Through a large-scale survey of US and Canadian biomedical scholars, we provide a comprehensive analysis of preprint utilization, perceived impact, and integration into academic credit systems. We find robust engagement across reading, citing, and submitting preprints; however, this activity is driven primarily by a desire for rapid dissemination rather than a foundational commitment to open science. Furthermore, while preprints are valued as networking assets, perceived career penalties during formal academic evaluations stifle broader cultural adoption. Crucially, to navigate the absence of formal peer review, scholars report a heavy reliance on author reputation as a primary heuristic to evaluate a preprint’s credibility and guide their reading and citation decisions. Notably, despite acknowledging preprints’ role in accelerating knowledge sharing, scholars express significant concerns regarding fraud and misinformation, particularly amid declining public trust in science and emerging threats to scientific integrity from artificial intelligence. To resolve these tensions, the preprint ecosystem must evolve beyond prioritizing speed to foster genuine academic dialogue. Simultaneously, evaluation frameworks must adapt to the realities of preprinting, and innovative quality-control mechanisms are urgently needed to balance rapid dissemination with rigorous scientific integrity.