Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
The claim that Thucydides’ account of the past is useful is often extended to historiography in general, rather than just to his specific – and idiosyncratic – approach. And that, suggests Neville Morley, may be the real trap of Thucydides.
How will social science research and teaching evolve to meet the challenges and opportunities big data creates? How can we bring down barriers to make this new computational social science accessible for all social researchers? That was the subject of a panel discussion at last month’s ESRC Festival of Social Sciences 2016.
Peer review clearly isn’t perfect, but rather than simply bypassing it and releasing even more information into an overloaded system, we should focus on making it better, says this life sciences editor. The first step is to reset and clearly state our standards for quality in both publishing and peer reviewing.
From sexual abuse to pay and promotion gaps and beyond, coeducation has not kept up with the promises which with it was introduced, argues the author of a new book on the subject.
UPDATE: Two Indian social scientists are among 10 people charged with murder in an Indian state wracked by an ongoing insurgency by Maoist rebels that the academics were actively studying. Almost 200 Indian sociologists are protesting the arrest.
In what he describes as the obverse of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, Robert Dingwall argues that the secular sainthood conferred on Mary Seacole steps on historical scholarship and ignores more genuine exemplars.
Higher education is a globally competitive market and institutions with a high rank can claim exceptionalism that brings in students and funding, acknowledges our Michelle Stack. But are rankings genuinely useful for students or for research?
Academics need to retain their freedom to speak on matters of interest, which intersect with their specialized knowledge, even where that intersection is tangential or not visible to others.