It is stunning to learn that so many people think that we are paid to be sources for journalists. [update: I misread this. The piece reports that a majority of people think that sources pay journalists to be included in their stories. Which is perhaps even more outrageous?]
Do you ever wonder how damaging a mean-spirited peer review an be for the professional trajectory of junior scientists who are just starting to publish their own work? Let’s find out! Here’s a study, anybody who has submitted a paper can (and hopefully will) participate. It takes just a few minutes: “You are invited to participate in an anonymous research study: Understanding the impacts of unprofessional peer reviews on early career scientists.”
It’s nice to see Science hop aboard the reimbursement-is-a-bad-thing train
NIH isn’t doing enough about sexual misconduct, but they’ve apparently started doing something, and now at least acknowledge that they haven’t been doing enough, and apologized.
Some students who applied for NSF graduate fellowships to do research in plant pathology reportedly had their proposals dismissed from review because, allegedly, they were tagged as being of clinical significance and deemed ineligible. The notion here is that a bot screened the proposals out because of terminology that is similar to human pathology.