An opinionated perspective on how to do important research that makes a difference (and sometimes win awards).
Paperstars
A better way to evaluate scientific papers. Methodological soundness and transparency, not citation counts.
BICS Essay Contest Winners
The winners were chosen based on the power of the arguments presented and on how persuasively the essays made the case for survival of human consciousness beyond a reasonable doubt as though you were in a courtroom. While the judges were reading and re-reading the 204 submitted essays, they were conscious of the great responsibility of choosing the top three. The judges chose these principal winners with exquisite care.
How to give a good research talk
Giving a good research talk is not easy. We try to identify some things which we have found helpful, in the hope that they may be useful to you.
A budding discipline around how science gets read and judged - Aris
Scholarly publishing spent thirty years arguing about access. It has barely begun arguing about what readers do with the paper once they have it. At Aris we call that second argument scholarly interface design. Mike Morrison's community calls it ScienceUX. Either way it is becoming a field, and here is why it is worth your attention.
How to Give a Great Research Talk
How and When to Involve Crowds in Scientific Research - The Book
This book explores how millions of people can significantly contribute to scientific research. Discover main elements, authors, and who this book is for and why.
Can we measure trust in scientific publications? - LSE Impact
Jonathon Alexis Coates outlines how a constellation of static and dynamic indicators could provide a means for assessing the trustworthiness of published research
Identify trusted publishers for your research • Think. Check. Submit.
Tools and practical resources, aiming to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.
Why we built the Journal of Research on Research and what it cost us - LSE Impact
Gemma Derrick, Bart Penders, Serge Horbach & Tony Ross-Hellauer reflect on the choices, challenges & compromises of launching the Journal of Research on Research
The Journal of Scientific Integrity
by Laura Luebbert and Lior Pachter Background (by LL) Four years ago, during the first year of my PhD at Caltech, I participated in a journal club organized by the lab I was rotating in. I was assi…
Science should be machine-readable - Marginal REVOLUTION
One of the leading tasks of our time: We develop a machine-automated approach for extracting results from papers, which we assess via a comprehensive review of the entire eLife corpus. Our method facilitates a direct comparison of machine and peer review, and sheds light on key challenges that must be overcome in order to facilitate […]
Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science
The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g. scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g. by H-factor) and rating scales (e.g. by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration.
Great new-ish paper by @zephoria.bsky.social I have a few thoughts …
