One of the complaints about peer review — a widely used by poorly studied process — is that it tends to reward papers that push science forward incrementally, but isn’t very good at identifying paradigm-shifting work. Put another way, peer review rewards mediocrity at the expense of breakthroughs. A new paper in the Proceedings of […]The post Peer review isn’t good at “dealing with exceptional or unconventional submissions,” says study appeared first
Originally published: Dec 22 2014 - 11:45am, Inside Science News ServiceBy: Katharine Gammon, Contributor(Inside Science) -- Residents of the Northern Hemisphere, don’t worry about the winter solstice – it’s not the middle of winter, and in some places, it’s not even the start of wintry weather.So why exactly is the shortest day of the year so distant from the coldest temperatures? It’s usually another month before the bone-aching freezes of winter hit their
Often in science, different people look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions and interpretations, and the subsequent debate is what often leads to discovery and insight. Two publications released in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute on the relationship between selenium and prostate cancer are examples of this continued debate. What can we learn from these reports?
As you all have no doubt noticed over the years, I love highlighting the best science books every year via the various end of year lists that newspapers, web sites, etc. publish. I’ve done it so far in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. And here we are in 2014! As in previous years,…