Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research.

Funding of curiosity-driven science is the lifeblood of scientific and technological innovation. Various models of funding allocation became institutionalized in the 20th century, shaping the present landscape of research funding. There are numerous reasons for scientists to be dissatisfied with current funding schemes, including the imbalance between funding for curiosity-driven and mission-directed research, regional and country disparities, path-dependency of who gets funded, gender and race disparities, low inter-reviewer reliability, and the trade-off between the effort and time spent on writing or reviewing proposals and doing research.

Automating the practice of science: Opportunities, challenges, and implications.

Automation transformed various aspects of our human civilization, revolutionizing industries and streamlining processes. In the domain of scientific inquiry, automated approaches emerged as powerful tools, holding promise for accelerating discovery, enhancing reproducibility, and overcoming the traditional impediments to scientific progress. This article evaluates the scope of automation within scientific practice and assesses recent approaches.

Is Ockham's razor losing its edge? New perspectives on the principle of model parsimony.

The preference for simple explanations, known as the parsimony principle, has long guided the development of scientific theories, hypotheses, and models. Yet recent years have seen a number of successes in employing highly complex models for scientific inquiry (e.g.

The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform.

For most researchers, academic publishing serves two goals that are often misaligned-knowledge dissemination and establishing scientific credentials. While both goals can encourage research with significant depth and scope, the latter can also pressure scholars to maximize publication metrics. Commercial publishing companies have capitalized on the centrality of publishing to the scientific enterprises of knowledge dissemination and academic recognition to extract large profits from academia by leveraging unpaid services from reviewers, creating financial barriers to research dissemination, and imposing substantial fees for open access.

Public good or climate washing? A guideline for climate and health researchers considering funding from carbon-intensive industries.

Should climate and health researchers accept funding from industries that profit from climate-damaging consumption? In this Personal View, we aim to ignite discussions on this key topic and to introduce a guideline to possibly help climate and health researchers grappling with this complex question. Drawing from existing tools focused on other public health issues and the conclusions of the 2023 Lancet Series on commercial determinants of health, we propose a guideline comprising six parts: meeting public health and climate goals; building credibility and trust; avoiding undue dependence on particular sources of funding; not inflating without good reason the public image of industry; embedding processes to ensure transparency and independence; and protecting the freedom to publish. We invite other climate and public health scientists to report their own experiences and provide feedback on this guideline.