In: Commentaries
Octopus – a replacement for scientists publishing that rewards good research?”
December 20, 2018After 17 years working in the media I have returned to academia and been shocked to discover so much poor research…
Read MoreOf negative results and dust
November 17, 2018Do studies with negative results have value or not? We hope that majority of our readers would agree that high-quality results…
Read MoreCutting the Gordian knots of industry-academia relationships
November 17, 2018Facing a seemingly intractable problem, we are often moved to go for any fast solution – just not to deal with…
Read MoreGods vs Earth Giants
November 17, 2018by Elena Koustova In the long gone Soviet higher (university-based) education system there were no electives. As aspiring biologists (e.g. natural…
Read More“Research quality is an urgent matter”
September 10, 2018In the March 2018 issue of the newsletter, we have previously discussed that the research rigor & reproducibility discussion starts to…
Read More“How to pick an electronic laboratory notebook?
September 10, 2018Commentary about the Nature-Toolbox article by Roberta Kwok (August 6th, 2018) Laboratory Notebooks (LN) play a key role in research since…
Read MoreElsevier replies to The Guardian
July 9, 2018Hot publications appear not only in Science and Nature. The lay press is also capable of getting their readers excited and…
Read MoreBefore Reproducibility must come Preproducibility
July 9, 2018Many of us ask a question – what can I do to help improve the research data quality? And we are…
Read MoreThe strategy may change, but high quality standards should stay
July 9, 2018Like many of our colleagues in neuroscience, we were surprised to see the recent steps Pfizer took in the field of…
Read MoreIs reading book summaries the same as reading the actual book?
June 6, 2018Books that can be summarized in three sentences (https://jamesclear.com/book-summaries). And one can summarize in a couple of sentences what most movies…
Read More