academia, careers, publishing

An influential paper on amyloid protein and Alzheimer’s disease potentially fabricated data. Why did it take 16 years to flag?

The journal’s executive director speaks with The Scientist about what it hopes to accomplish with its unusual new publishing model.

An analysis finds that reviewers are more likely to choose to be de-anonymized when their reviews are positive, suggesting instituting a fully open process might discourage negative feedback.

While some academics have called for compensation for assessing other scientists’ work, publishers haven’t warmed to the idea.

Junior faculty in particular may lose ground as undergrad students remain barred from university labs.

Last month, 10 UK universities became part of the UK Reproducibility Network, joining researchers, funders, journal publishers, and regulatory agencies.

Half of early-career researchers say they’d participated in the peer review process with their mentors without getting credit.

For many, it’s not a question of when senior academics should leave their posts, it’s about how to distribute scarce resources such as grants and faculty positions more fairly.

A scientist’s most influential paper may come at any point in her career but chances are it won’t change her overall success, researchers show.

Researchers present a tool that uses a scientist’s PubMed data to estimate the probability of becoming a principal investigator in academia.

Choosing to work in industry does not preclude a return to academe. But the move back takes some planning and finesse.