Peer-review is essential to keep science on track. But it can be too demanding on scientists, who are asked to do it for free and anonymously. How many papers are fair to review or to decline?
I was recently in China for a couple of weeks visiting different scientific institutions. I definitely learned a lot about a part of the world blending the oldest traditions and the greatest potential to impact humanity’s future.
LaTeX had many advantages in the past, but not anymore. Why do physicists still stick to it?
Scientific journals only want to be fed with new physical insights. But how many of those may scientists spawn in their careers? It’s getting hard to feed those beasts.
Quantitative evaluation of scientific production isn’t disrupting science. On the contrary, it’s the best we can do. The alternative is to give in to bias and prejudice.
Data visualization in science is at the edge of a revolution. But it depends on scientists, editors, and publishers to take the next step.
Academics suck at writing. A good part of the problem is in the collaborative work, where the rush combined with a sum of excellent opinions produces a Frankensteinian text. Can we do it better?