The faces of Big Science

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 423-426

  Schatz, Gottfried ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EUROPE; GENDER BIAS; GROWTH; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL SECURITY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84901361848     PISSN: 14710072     EISSN: 14710080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrm3807     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Price de Solla, D. J. Little Science, Big Science (Columbia University Press, 1963).
2. Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking, 2005).
3. Kovác, L. 'Finitics'. A plea for biological realism. EMBO Rep. 9, 703-708 (2008).
4. Perutz, M. F. Will biomedicine outgrow support? Nature 399, 299-301 (1999). (Pubitemid 29318110)
5. Larsen, P. O. & von Ins, M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84, 575-603 (2010).
6. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Khusru A. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011).
7. Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533 (2012).
8. Arrowsmith, J. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008-2010. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 328-329 (2011).
9. Colhoun, H. M., McKeigue, P. M, & Davey Smith, G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361, 865-872 (2003). (Pubitemid 36331853)
10. Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2, e124 (2005).
11. Neumann, U. in Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter. Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag. (eds Hauke, P. & Umlauf, K.) 49-64 (Bock & Herchen, 2006).
12. Simons, K. The misused impact factor. Science 322, 165 (2008).
13. Alberts, B. Impact Factor Distortions. Science 340, 787 (2013).
14. Schroter, S. et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J. R. Soc. Med. 101, 507-514 (2008).
15. Grens, K. Fake paper exposes failed peer review. The Scientist [online], http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37798/title/ Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/ (2013).
16. Sample, I. Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals. The Guardian [online], http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner- boycott-science-journals (2013).
17. Schatz, G. Europe: not enough independence for young scientists. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2, 1 (1981).
18. Schatz, G. Euro-blues. FEBS Lett. 521, 1-2 (2002).
19. Nowotny, H. European research momentum. Science 305, 753 (2004). (Pubitemid 39038382)
20. Schatz, G. The Swiss vote on gene technology. Science 281, 1810-1811 (1998).
21. Nurse, P. EMBO at 50. Science 343, 117 (2014).