Search

The article reports on a study suggesting that older scientists had published more research papers than their younger counterparts. It was found that those in their 50s and 60s had published twice as many papers per year as compared to those who are in their early 30s. Yves Gingras, a historian of science, became interested in the topic when he read that the average age for first grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Maryland had increased from 34 in 1970 to almost 42 in 2004.

The article features about the governments, that are giving financial rewards to scientists for publishing high-profile papers. In South Korea researchers get US$3,000 and in China the amount is ten times more, and in Pakistan it is in the form of research grant. But some critics fear this trend is dangerous, and ethics are compromised, by equating excellence with money. Some, view that the reward systems has some merit, partly because in involves anonymous peer reviewers.

Focuses on the work of Alison Smith, a plant scientist at the University of Cambridge in Great Britain, in exploring the idea that seaweed make Vitamin B12. Collaboration made with her constant collaborator Martin Warren to initiate the experiment; Inquiry made on the genomic sequences of the three types of algae; Examination on the mechanism by which the algae get the vitamin from the bacteria and also what the bacteria get from the transaction.

The article reports on the efforts of U.S. government to make scientific research available for all. It reports that the accessibility offered by the Internet has transformed science publishing over the past decade. The government of the U.S. is making efforts to make all federally funded research available for free. The new system will make huge numbers of scientific articles publicly available for all. It reports that such archives will basically contain the final versions of the manuscripts written by the authors. There was an increase in public access in late 2007 when the U.S. Congress passed a bill and made it compulsory for scientists funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to deposit their papers within 12 months of publication.

The article reports on the science funding in Great Britain. This paper gives observation on the changing landscapes in the funding that the government provides. Research councils may be pressured to deliver results as the government now seeks for results to the long and heavily invested science researches. Scientists had enjoyed tremendous funding in the past decade and the government wants to see results as indicated by the council documents implying economic competitiveness and social impacts.

The article features about the governments are giving cash prizes to scientists for publishing high-profile papers. Many scientists are not happy as they think that the driving force for research should be curiosity, not money. This system of rewards is now practised in South Korea, China and in Pakistan and many developing countries. But some critics fear this trend is not good,m as it involves plagiarism and ethics are compromised, and some feel insulted for equating excellence with money.

Discusses the importance of publishing research papers. Challenges faced by the researcher in publishing the research; Need to convince peer reviewers of the contribution of the research to the collective knowledge; Achievement of a researcher if his or her work get published.

The article presents views of the publishers of the journal "Nature," on what they would like to see happen in 2005. Their wishes range from optimistic hopes for readers' even more responsible social behavior to the more self-interested yearning that their own professional goals could be made easier to achieve. They have quoted several things including, good informatics, good communication, good citizenship, good authorship and good leadership. They advise researchers to resolve to visit a real library to browse paper journals and books at least once in 2005; resolve to share their scientific knowledge to general public; and spend some of your free time contributing to a public good, such as the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative.

Presents the results on a study of Japanese scientists and their research. The assertion that researchers should place more emphasis on quality and less on quantity of papers they publish; Percentage of scientists who communicate with foreign researchers; Further findings of the report from the Science and Technology Agency (STA).

Discusses the practices of Japanese scientists regarding research. A report indicating that many Japanese scientists do not publish internationally; Percentage that publish only in Japanese journals; Focus on numerical output of research papers; Other findings of the study.