Scoop NZ: Complete online record of 150 years of discovery. “All copies of the Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, one of New Zealand’s most important research publications, are now available online, thanks to a collaborative project between Royal Society Te Apārangi and the National Library of New Zealand. The project has filled in the missing years between 1961 and 1970.”
Quartz: The titans of AI are getting their work double-checked by students. “We trust in science because we can verify the accuracy of its claims. We test and verify that accuracy by repeating the scientist’s original experiments. What happens when those tests fail, particularly in a field that has the potential to create billions of dollars of revenue?”
The Times: Museum fees are killing art history, say academics. “Historians say that they are abandoning academic projects because of a ‘tax on scholarship’ imposed by museums. The Tate and the British Museum are among institutions that charge scholars to reprint historic artworks in journals, books and lectures, even though the originals are out of copyright.”
GW Hatchet: Faculty use social media to generate online hype for research projects. “When researchers look to generate buzz for their latest project or to collect data for their next study, they are increasingly turning to social media. At a time when [George Washington University] is striving to expand its research reputation across the globe and faculty are forced to vie for increasingly competitive federal grants, experts and faculty said publicizing projects on platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram is crucial to gain wide recognition and reach a broader audience.”
Newswise: Scientists Want to Study Your Tweets; Is It Ethical?. “Did you know researchers are reading and analyzing your tweets and Facebook posts in the name of science? If so, how do you feel about it? If you feel unsettled, what would make you feel better? What’s legal and what’s not in the age of big-data research? And even if it is legal, is it ethical?”
Retraction Watch: Looking to avoid a bad lab? A new site wants to help. “We’ve all heard horror stories of lab disputes that can quickly spin out of control. (Such as a graduate student obtaining a restraining order against his supervisor, which we covered earlier this year for Science.) Naturally, prospective students want to do their homework before committing to a particular laboratory or supervisor. A new website, QCist, is trying to make that process easier, by letting students rate labs. It’s still new – only several dozen lab heads have been rated so far, mostly from the U.S. – but founder and Executive Director Qian-Chen Yong has plans for it to grow much bigger. We spoke with Yong, currently a research fellow at the Cancer Research Institute, Baylor Scott & White Health in Texas — who completed a postdoc at Texas A&M Health Science Center and a PhD at the National University of Singapore — about the plan to keep the site from becoming a place to smear a tough boss’s reputation.” Interesting comments. No, really.
Science Magazine: Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests. “There is no doubt that Sci-Hub, the infamous—and, according to a U.S. court, illegal—online repository of pirated research papers, is enormously popular. (See Science’s investigation last year of who is downloading papers from Sci-Hub.) But just how enormous is its repository? That is the question biodata scientist Daniel Himmelstein at the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues recently set out to answer, after an assist from Sci-Hub.”