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 possible retraction of a high profile paper in the medical sciences offers a teachable moment about replication, peer review, cognitive bias and the beauty and beastliness that can be science.
Social science and humanities spending by government is seen as a luxury by many. While there’s politics involved, some of that view likely follows from the yardsticks used to measure research value.
Many social scientists find themselves members of a cult of quantification, argues Robert Dingwall, in love with numbers for their own sake even when those numbers produce no useful knowledge.
When Tony Abbott took office as Australia’s prime minister and didn’t name a science minister, he asked that his government be judged by action, not titles.
When he was inducted as a fellow into the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences on May 8, Carnegie Mellon criminologist Daniel Nagin delivered a concise and pointed precis of modern research into proactive policing as part of his remarks.
Last month a team of UK academics launched an initiative called the Evidence Information Service, which seeks to enable rapid dialogue between researchers and policy makers. Here, the system’s founders describe the response so far and the challenges that lie ahead.
While there are ample perspective benefits to behavioral nudges in the creation of public policy, make sure the nudges are designed for real people and not some rational superbeing.
With no controversy and the only discussion about how best to honor the retiring chairman of the panel, the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that oversees the unlikely bedfellows of justice, commerce and scientific agencies has approved a $7.4 billion budget for the National Science Foundation.