Articles tagged with Postpublication Review
The Japan Institutional Gateway platform is now available to researchers across Japan, enabling the publication of Japanese-language research at world-class speed and reliability. This expansion aims to support the acceleration of the open research movement promoted by the Japanese government.
The journal addresses ethical challenges, best practices, and scientific integrity issues through metascience and evidence-based research standards. Emerging technologies like AI are transforming how researchers conduct, communicate, and disseminate their work.
All articles with at least one author based in Africa can now be submitted to the platform and will no longer require funding from a partnering research funder. This expansion aims to increase publication efficiency and improve the experience of African authors, while promoting the rapid sharing and discovery of high-quality research.
The Einstein Foundation Berlin presents the €500,000 award to recognize institutions and researchers who improve research quality and robustness. Researchers like Elisabeth Bik, PubPeer, and PixelQuality are honored for their work on promoting quality and accountability in research.
Three leading medical communication organizations warn that bypassing traditional high standards of peer-reviewed journals may erode public trust. They recommend pre-publication vetting and education to enhance the integrity of published research.
A new study found that individuals who feel like impostors in their jobs are less likely to fulfill their full potential, undervaluing their talent and affecting their careers. However, this phenomenon can also encourage people to offer their best performance, highlighting the complex relationship between self-doubt and success.
Researchers found that exposure to lavender aroma significantly increased money transfer between test persons in a trust game. The study suggests that smelling lavender may help establish trusting negotiations and build team spirit in various situations.
A new study published in PeerJ found that publicly discussed papers were retracted or corrected 7-fold more than those for which allegations were never publicized. This suggests that editors may be more inclined to act on a paper if they see the sum-total of a particular lab group's problems.