I don’t recall hearing it before. But I’ve heard the slogan “high value, low wastage research” a lot the last few days. And I think this one is more than just a catchphrase.
It should never be a rushed afterthought. An awful lot is riding on the quality of scientific abstracts. Most readers will rely on that summary, delving in no further. And a conference abstract,
What should scientific editors be able to do well? We would all be able to agree easily on some basics. Last year, a group led by David Moher and colleagues came to a
A paper recently dropped a trio of randomized trials of an infographic going head-to-head with text. The reaction to the performance of the infographic was interesting. A lot of people clearly have strong beliefs about
Over 500 science journal editors, publishers, and meta-researchers are gathered in Chicago for the 8th Peer Review Congress (#PRC8), a once-every-4-years researchfest about “enhancing the quality and credibility of science”. I’m live-blogging – you can catch
Once every 4 years editors, publishers, and meta-researchers assemble in Chicago for the Peer Review Congress – an intense researchfest about “enhancing the quality and credibility of science”. I’m live-blogging day 1 – with the latest entries
My last post on the use of open science badges for articles set off a flurry of debate. There were some issues that I had touched on, but clearly could use more discussion –
The case of the missing neurological drug trials remains shrouded in mystery. Nearly 48,000 people took part in these trials for new drugs for multiple sclerosis, stroke, Alzheimer disease, migraine, epilepsy, insomnia, and Parkinson disease.
Many of them were watching the evening TV news on the BBC, with no idea of the blow that was about to hit. They were cancer patients at a center in Bristol, and
It’s not a new story, although “the reproducibility crisis” may seem to be. For life sciences, I think it started in the late 1950s. Large-scale problems in clinical research burst into the open in a very public