Recent quotes:

Eva Amsen, also an ex-scientist, current epic science communicator and Outreach Manager for F1000Research.

Next up, Eva gave an account of how F1000 is pushing the boundaries of the current publishing models by allowing fast publication combined with post-publication peer review. She gave a nice historical overview of publishing, pointing out that since the first publication in 1665, and the first instance of peer review as we currently know it in the mid-20th Century, nothing much has changed about how we publish until recently. Journals used to act as the gatekeepers for science, when research was published in paper issues, and this is what made it restrictive – page limits. Now though, we don’t have those limits thanks to the online world, but still these limits are often still imposed.

Scholarly publishing is broken. Here’s how to fix it | Aeon Ideas

Researchers are still forced to write ‘papers’ for these journals, a communication format designed in the 17th century. Now, in a world where the power of web-based social networks is revolutionising almost every other industry, researchers need to take back control.

Is the 'blockchain revolution' coming for science? GT&V

Blockchain-based services, and those based on similar technology, are what we call ‘decentralised’. This means that services and power/control are taken from a single point and distributed across numerous local points instead. This means that there is no single point of failure, and that services/control become owned by community-based structures instead. Can you imagine legacy publishers like Wiley, Elsevier, and SpringerNature being too happy with that? I can’t. Elsevier, and others like Digital Science, are trying to pull researchers into a system where they control the entire research workflow, from data collection all the way through to evaluation (more on this here). Great for business, bad for science, and especially scientific freedom – a basic co-opting of ‘open science’. Decentralised services, therefore, provide an alternative to this, and a highly disruptive potential.

Many published psychology experiments lack evidence of validity, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Chester and Lasko investigated 348 psychological manipulations included in peer-reviewed studies. They found that roughly 42% of the experiments were paired with no validity evidence, and that the remaining psychological manipulations were validated in ways that were extremely limited. "These findings call into question the accuracy of one of psychology's most common practices and suggest that the field needs to strongly improve its practices in this methodological domain," said Chester, an assistant professor in theDepartment of Psychologyin theCollege of Humanities and Sciences.

Psychiatrist Engaged in Research Misconduct, Says Gov't Watchdog

"I acknowledge there were regulatory issues raised, which I don't deny, but they were all unintentional," he told Medscape Medical News. "I regret the decisions that were noted, but, again, I acted with my best intentions, meaning I wanted to advance science, and therefore it's particularly sad and devastating for me personally, because I never intended to do anything wrong or act against any regulations or anything."