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 […]
In this article, Michael Mehmet, Clifford Lewis, and Nina Reynolds reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “A Narrative Review of […]
In this month’s installment of The Evidence newsletter, journalist Josephine Lethbridge explores recent research into sexual violence prevention programs and interviews experts […]
In this article, co-authors Brett Anitra Gilbert and Meredith Burnett reflect on their interests and the inspiration behind their research article, “Firm Heterogeneity and […]
In this article, co-authors Jurgen Willems and Kenn Meyfroodt reflect on the inspiration behind their open-access article, “Group Research: Why are we […]
In this article, Vanessa C. Hasse reflects upon what drove her interest in researching rare but impactful events, as well as the […]
In this article, Jenna Adriana Maeve Barrett, Elina Jaakkola, Jonas Heller, and Elizabeth Christine Brüggen reflect on the way that customers engage with certain brands and services.
It is estimated that all journals, irrespective of discipline, experience a steeply rising number of fake paper submissions. Currently, the rate is about 2 percent. That may sound small. But, given the large and growing amount of scholarly publications it means that a lot of fake papers are published. Each of these can seriously damage patients, society or nature when applied in practice.
The new AI Disclosures Project seeks to create structures that both recognize the commercial enticements of AI while ensuring that issues of safety and equity are front and center in the decisions private actors make about AI deployment.