Measuring short-term success is usually easy. Recognizing quality is somewhat harder, while predicting lasting significance is, in most cases, nigh on impossible. But what we seek is certainty, knowledge, and reliability in order to build on new findings and forge ahead.
How to encourage scientists to use more solid methods and reliable research? Dorothy Bishop and Dieter Imboden, heads of the award jury, discuss ways to stay level-headed and ethical in a competitive system.
Chalk is a hybrid thing: solid and durable, soft and ephemeral. Writing or drawing with chalk gives you the freedom to err, to add corrections, and reconsider your ideas.
What is the current state of research quality? A brief - and incomplete - collection of figures on the topic.
Physicist Paul Ginsparg set out to democratize access to scientific results. Today, his preprint serverarXiv has spread to many other fields — and made science progress more efficient and fairer. A profile by Andrew Curry
Why has evaluating quality in science changed from asking “What” to “How much”? How did measuring quality become a goal in itself in the scientific community? Award Secretary Ulrich Dirnagl provides a brief outline of the evolution of quality in science.
Open research is on the rise, but a lot of research information still remains behind closed doors. The Center for Open Science enables scientists, publishers and funders to work more transparently by providing technology and policy recommendations. An article by Helen Albert
Achieving trust in robust scientific knowledge needs non-negotiable norms — and critical journalism to serve as a mediator. A comment by Volker Stollorz, Managing Director of the Science Media Center Germany.
Is the choice of test groups representative? Are the data sets and protocols diverse enough? Four pioneering research projects pushing for more inclusive & replicable study designs were shortlisted in the Early Career category. Short profiles by Nora Lessing