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 […]
We’ve all heard the phrase “peer review” as giving credence to research and scholarly papers, but what does it actually mean? How […]
While Tomas Piketty’s focus on inequality is seen as finally getting the discussion of inequality on the front pages, it may be his his data collection that really cements his reputation.
Social scientists don’t always study subjects whose actions please the authorities. Is the freedom to associate with these people for research purposes under attack? Should researchers have their own ‘shield law’?
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.
China’s apparent reluctance to publish it social science and humanities scholarship openly is less about what it lets out, argues Michael Hockx, and more about what opening up might let in.
Technology may bring efficiencies to higher education, argues David Glance, but only if the expectations of both the suppliers and consumers fundamentally change.
The Conversation UK, a Social Science Space media partner, celebrates its first birthday today. Here, Stephen Khan, the editor of The Conversation UK, reflects on the year that was.
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.