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 […]
“There is also a dimension of intergenerational justice, making these decisions [sustainable business practices], so that our generation is not ripping off […]
Today, writes Carole Lévesque, we rightly insist on the importance of researchers favoring the co-production of knowledge. Research is done with Indigenous people, not on Indigenous people.
Society, the authors, find, suppresses women’s entrepreneurship just by the way it talks about entrepreneurs.
The authors – all journal editors -believe that feedback given in peer review should be rigorous, but will be more readily incorporated if kindly given, to the advancement of science.
We know that one outlier has the potential to influence the size and direction of effects, the significance of hypothesized relationships, and significantly alter the results of published works, but what happens when there are dozens of outliers in a sample?
Not one single metric can encapsulate the importance of a field, notes Digital Science’s Mike Taylor, and in fields where broader uptake is slower, this is especially true.
The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University is partnering with La Vie des Idées, a leading publishing platform for social science and humanities dialogue and thinking.
Engineer and applied physicist Arati Prabhakar – who previously headed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and National Institute of Standards and Technology — has been nominated to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy