A spoof science paper was accepted to over 150 Open Access journals. This is the original story of how that was done and why.
A biologist at UC Berkeley describes how a severely flawed paper was published in Science, the same journal that attempted to uncover flaws in Open Access publishing. These two articles taken together speak to the need for a better system of science publishing.
How do we evaluate the value of scientific output? What’s working and what’s not? This article talks about the problems we are currently facing.
Why does post-publication peer review matter? How does it make science better? This is a great case study on how post-publication peer review makes things better.
Poor experiments, bad analysis and too much trust is causing a big problem and limiting the impact of science. Careerism and other issues are discussed to demonstrate how science needs to improve.
Recent study finds that journal papers often contain erroneous or incomplete data.
An exploration of issues with traditional peer review and proposed solutions over the last 20 years.
Why Popular Science will no longer accept comments on new articles.
Brian Lucey shares some expert advice on how to be helpful, scientific and professional when reviewing a paper.
Shortcomings of the traditional peer review process and solutions for moving forward.