Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
The following articles are drawn from SAGE Insight, which spotlights research published in SAGE’s more than 700 journals. The articles linked below are free […]
The following articles are drawn from SAGE Insight, which spotlights research published in SAGE’s more than 700 journals. The articles linked below are free […]
Having run the gantlet of online abuse and legal threats for their troubles, two top-notch science communicators have won this year’s John Maddox Prize for the their evidence-based good work and dedication in the face of adversity.
So you’ve written a snappy and yet accurate and informative title for your journal article, and so after your victory lap you spend just a few seconds thinking about the keywords. That’s probably a mistake, argues the just-retired editor of an important political science journal.
At what point to private (and perhaps unpalatable) opinions expressed off-campus impinge on a scholar’s employment? This abstract question has been made concrete in two recent cases.
Tweeting and talking to reporters sure must be a good thing for boosting buzz about researchers’ work and then ultimately their careers, right? A new study says absolutely, but it also questions the benefits of some other career-boosting activities.
A much-shared screed against various types of science –including, predictably, most social science–has James Dyke scratching his head and quoting Wolfgang Pauli: ‘This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.’
The British-based nonprofit that helps the public understand the barrage of research data encountered routinely is starting a similar effort in the United States.