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 […]
A small but vocal contingent of researchers has maintained that many, perhaps most, published studies are wrong. But how bad is this problem, exactly? And what features make a study more or less likely to turn out to be true? A team of 270 researchers asked the question of published psychology studies.
The professor whose use of the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ in his class went viral here explains how that same piece of game theory can help bridge liberal and conservative differences.
The printed book, though still part of the academic library ensemble, is being relegated to the role of supporting player rather than the lead actor, argues a University of California librarian.
Math can be immoral. too. Algorithms rarely come equipped with an explanation for why they behave the way they do, notes mathematician Jeremy Kun, and the easy (and dangerous) course of action is not to ask questions.
No one ever assumed that everything in print was trustworthy, says Virginia Barbour, and neither should that be the case for open access content. Content is what matters – whether delivered by open access, subscription publishing, or a printed document.
‘Interdisciplinarity lies not above the academy, but in its very foundations,’ say the co-authors of a new report looking at this issue.
Objective outsiders focused on the purse or knowledgeable insiders focused on the scholarship — who should decide the best way to derive the productivity and innovations sought from Britain’s Research Councils?
The need to ‘publish of perish’ may send many academics adrift in unknown and dangerous waters of the predatory and vanity journals. It’s worth keeping a weather eye before sailing over the edge.