Summarizing a paper in your own words restructures the content to focus on learning rather than novelty.

Blogging has taught me how to read a paper because explaining something is a more active form of understanding. Now I summarize the main contribution in my own words, write out the notation and problem setup, define terms, and rederive the main equations or results. This process mimics the act of presenting and is great practice for it.

When I first started teaching myself to program, I felt that I had no imagination. I couldn’t be creative because I was too focused on finding the syntax bug or reasoning about program structure. However, with proficiency came creativity. Programming became less important than what I was building and why.

In my opinion the reason most people fail to do great research is that they are not willing to pay the price in self-development. Say some new field opens up that combines field XXX and field YYY. Researchers from each of these fields flock to the new field. My experience is that virtually none of the researchers in either field will systematically learn the other field in any sort of depth. The few who do put in this effort often achieve spectacular results.

Many of us have done this on exams, hoping for partial credit by stitching together the outline of a proof or using the right words in an essay with the hopes that the professor connects the dots for us.

The scientists were astonished by the results: selective noradrenaline release re-wired the connectivity patterns between different brain regions in a way that was extremely similar to the changes observed in humans exposed to acute stress. Networks that process sensory stimuli, such as the visual and auditory center of the brain, exhibited the strongest increase in activity. A similar rise in activity was observed in the amygdala network, which is associated with states of anxiety.

Research methodologies and methods used must be open for full discussion and review by peers and stakeholders.

Negative values included when assessing air quality In computing average pollutant concentrations, EPA includes recorded values that are below zero. EPA advised that this is consistent with NEPM AAQ procedures. Logically, however, the lowest possible value for air pollutant concentrations is zero. Either it is present, even if in very small amounts, or it is not. Negative values are an artefact of the measurement and recording process. Leaving negative values in the data introduces a negative bias, which potentially under represents actual concentrations of pollutants. We noted a considerable number of negative values recorded. For example, in 2016, negative values comprised 5.3 per cent of recorded hourly PM2.5 values, and 1.3 per cent of hourly PM10 values. When we excluded negative values from the calculation of one‐day averages, there were five more exceedance days for PM2.5 and one more for PM10 during 2016.

We’re delighted to announce that the California Digital Library has been awarded a 2-year NSF EAGER grant to support active, machine-actionable data management plans (DMPs).

The students who exerted more self-control were not more successful in accomplishing their goals. It was the students who experienced fewer temptations overall who were more successful when the researchers checked back in at the end of the semester.

The point of replication isn't to shame researchers — it's to build better science

“papers are the only scientific artifacts that are guaranteed to be preserved.”

A system that assumes a "quite good" institution is unable to get better, and thus denies them the funds that would enable them to get better, is probably not an optimal system for promoting merit. A system that rewards in proportion to merit would at least be able to recognise and reflect the dynamism of university research; research groups wax and wane as people come, go, get disheartened, get re-invigorated.

it could be argued that we don’t just need an elite: we need a reasonable number of institutions in which there is a strong research environment, where more senior researchers feel valued and their graduate students and postdocs are encouraged to aim high. Our best strategy for retaining international competitiveness might be by fostering those who are doing well but have potential to do even better