Nature column: How journals can help Latin American scientists

'Partner with Latin American scientific societies. They can help journals to identify scholars to invite onto editorial boards and as reviewers. Owing to the barriers they face, highly qualified Latin American candidates might not have built an international profile through publications or conference invitations — but they can be outstanding choices. Increased Latin American representation will also encourage more submissions.' https://lnkd.in/dX5zjcF3

As someone working in clinical research, I see firsthand how the tendency to publish mainly “positive” results can distort the evidence base and slow true progress. This PLOS Biology article emphasizes a values-based approach that rewards transparency, rigor, and openness — principles that should define every phase of research. Publishing null or negative results is not failure — it’s an essential step toward real scientific understanding. It should count! 🧬👩🏼🔬 #ClinicalResearch #Science #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificRigor #DataTransparency

🌍 Shrinking vs. Growing Imagination in Research and Innovation In the world of academia and research, imagination shapes discovery. But imagination can either shrink or grow — depending on who is invited into the conversation. When imagination 𝘀𝗵𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸𝘀, it’s often limited to: - Only Global North experts - Wealthy, privileged voices - Only men or only English-speaking researchers - People with limited lived experience This narrow lens restricts innovation, diversity of thought, and real-world impact. When imagination 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘀, it’s nurtured by inclusion: - People with lived experience - Patient advocates - Women, gender-diverse, and queer people - Youth - Non-elite Global South experts - Black, Indigenous, and people of color - Grassroots communities most impacted by global challenges These voices expand imagination, spark creativity, and lead to more ethical, empathetic, and impactful research outcomes. FREE Websites for Downloading PhD Thesis   1. Open Access Theses and Dissertations https://oatd.org/ 2. Open Thesis http://www.openthesis.org/ 3. DART-Europe E-theses Portal https://lnkd.in/d4SUFCTX 4. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses https://www.proquest.com/ 5. MIT Theses https://lnkd.in/dMs-PuYs  6. Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations http://www.ndltd.org/  7. Caltech Thesis https://lnkd.in/dZ6f8T5J  8. British Library https://www.bl.uk/  9. Electronic Theses & Dissertation Centre https://etd.ohiolink.edu/  10. Harvard DASH https://dash.harvard.edu/ Follow me Miraz Uddin ✫ PHD for more

While my career has shifted from policy research to communications, I try to stay updated on metascience studies and the broader movement toward a more open and inclusive scientific ecosystem. The progress in advocating for better open access infrastructure and transparent research reward mechanisms is critical and encouraging to follow. I am elated to share one such policy paper I contributed to during my tenure at DST-CPR, IISc was recently published in the Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy. The paper, "Understanding Indian researcher’s perspectives on preprints," aims to establish an early understanding of how researchers in India view preprints and their adoption. The findings highlight the critical need for supportive policies, institutional guidelines, and cultural shifts in research assessment to fully realize the potential of preprint as a key open science tool.

Should publicly funded humanities research be societally relevant? Many PRFs seem to think so, but current methods of assessing this are inconsistent, costly, and time-consuming. Together with colleagues from KU Leuven and UCLouvain, we investigated if peer review could be an effective method of assessing societal relevance. 38 early career researchers were tasked to assess the societal relevance of 885 humanities abstracts in English from the Web of Science. We found that peer review was largely unreliable. Raters reached full consensus on only 8.93% of all abstracts. Changing the reviewers of the same set of abstracts was expected to lead to a 25.47% difference in the proportion of abstracts rated relevant, compared to only 16.41% if the abstracts themselves were changed. And strikingly, only 38.68% of these published abstracts were rated as describing research that is societally relevant. Linguistics and Philosophy were more likely to have abstracts rated as relevant compared to Literature, with History and Religion falling in between. In our paper, we go on to look at factors contributing to the unreliability of peer review, and content categories that increased the chances of abstracts being rated societally relevant. Paper is available open access on QSS: https://lnkd.in/eHrBXHBN

"Fake scientific studies are rapidly increasing, undermining public trust in science. Corrupt editors manipulate peer review and publish low-quality or fabricated research. The root cause is the quantitative metrics like publication and citation counts, which incentivize quantity over quality. There is a growing call to reform academic assessment practices to better value research integrity" https://lnkd.in/d-XEh_3t

📌 Spread the news! 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀: 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝟭𝟳𝟬𝟬–𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟬 for a workshop in Leuven (Sept 2026). 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 for abstracts (500 words): 31 January, 2026. ✒️ With this call for abstracts, we want to invite historians and other interested scholars to reflect collectively on the 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 from 1700 to 2020. Scholarly evaluation, we argue, is and has not solely revolved around quality control or gatekeeping. Instead, evaluative moments can also be approached as instances of knowledge production, circulation, transfer, or constitution. Historically, scholarly evaluation has also been related to education and teaching students how to do proper scholarship, or guarding the autonomy of scientists over their work. In line with the work of Laura Stark on ‘declarative bodies’, we moreover see (scholarly) evaluation as a performative act: evaluation processes can produce new ideas, structure our thinking about (valuable) scholarship, and (re)establish collectives (Stark 2012; 2019). During a live workshop in Leuven (Sept 2026), we aim to use the varied perspective of evaluation to probe the – shared or distinct – histories of knowledge production and career development 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. Inspired by developments within the burgeoning field of history of knowledge, we think histories of evaluative cultures have the potential to enhance our understanding of questions related to access, legitimacy, and the development of scholarly reputations in a more holistic way. 👥 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲: Marie-Gabrielle Verbergt, Sjang ten Hagen, Joris Vandendriessche and Els Minne. ➡️ The workshop is organised as part of the 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝟭𝟱𝟬𝟬-𝟭𝟵𝟬𝟬 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 sponsored by Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek - Vlaanderen (FWO). Bringing together nine international partners, the network explores what happens when we view the relation between the natural and the human sciences through the lens of their intertwined histories. The workshop is co-organised by the 𝗘𝗥𝗖-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗲𝘀 (KU Leuven, Cultural History since 1750). ➡️ All information about the Call for Papers & the HSHH Network can also be found here: https://lnkd.in/eUXKjiDq. On the Global Academies project, see: https://lnkd.in/eMyakK3F.

🚀 "This fixation on publications as the only important research output skews how research is rewarded, undermines a significant part of the research workforce, and ultimately restricts the ability to conduct research. The Festival of Hidden REF brought together people from across the country to work on breaking down the barriers that create this skew." https://lnkd.in/dptdCgu2

Scientific work must be thorough and cannot be driven primarily by social or economic pressure. There were a few years when I was unhappy that I didn't have many publications. I shouldn't be ashamed, I do my best. and my best has a high value. Recently, there are different voices in academia regarding the ideal number of publications. Some voices support 1-2 publications per year, thus preventing researchers from joining to publications that are clearly not theirs. This sounds like an interesting idea. Focusing on autonomous research and submitting only material that is worthy of publication are great. When we're not exploring, there are enough activities to fill the schedule: group meetings, peer review, exposure to current literature, academic visits, and participation in national and international conferences. and also resting which is critical. The scientific literature is already flooded with millions of articles and thousands of books, so why not publish only what is truly new, exciting and relevant to a wide audience? I.

Is academic research becoming too competitive? Nature Magazine examines the data Applications for European Research Council (ERC) increased in 2025. Scientists say they’re feeling the competition UCC Research Nóirín Uí Bhreithiúnaigh Niamh Mundow Paolo Saporito https://lnkd.in/erD3wgpU