Explore the vast range of titles available.

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the \"hardness\" of scientific research--i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors--is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a \"positive\" (full or partial) or \"negative\" support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in \"softer\" sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.

Its rise to the top has been long forecast, but what next for Chinese science in the post-pandemic era? Its rise to the top has been long forecast, but what next for Chinese science in the post-pandemic era?

After a dip during the pandemic, the country has boosted and broadened its high-quality research output. After a dip during the pandemic, the country has boosted and broadened its high-quality research output.

Why are some scientific disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, more fragmented into conflicting schools of thought than other fields, such as physics and biology? Furthermore, why does high fragmentation tend to coincide with limited scientific progress? We analyzed a formal model where scientists seek to identify the correct answer to a research question. Each scientist is influenced by three forces: (i) signals received from the correct answer to the question; (ii) peer influence; and (iii) noise. We observed the emergence of different macroscopic patterns of collective exploration, and studied how the three forces affect the degree to which disciplines fall apart into divergent fragments, or so-called \"schools of thought\". We conducted two simulation experiments where we tested (A) whether the three forces foster or hamper progress, and (B) whether disciplinary fragmentation causally affects scientific progress and vice versa. We found that fragmentation critically limits scientific progress. Strikingly, there is no effect in the opposite causal direction. What is more, our results shows that at the heart of the mechanisms driving scientific progress we find (i) social interactions, and (ii) peer disagreement. In fact, fragmentation is increased and progress limited if the simulated scientists are open to influence only by peers with very similar views, or when within-school diversity is lost. Finally, disciplines where the scientists received strong signals from the correct answer were less fragmented and experienced faster progress. We discuss model's implications for the design of social institutions fostering interdisciplinarity and participation in science.

Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include \"other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.\" It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the \"research misconduct\" policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must nonetheless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy.

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential in the field of education. The study explores three main areas: (1) How did ChatGPT answer questions related to science education? (2) What are some ways educators could utilise ChatGPT in their science pedagogy? and (3) How has ChatGPT been utilised in this study, and what are my reflections about its use as a research tool? This exploratory research applies a self-study methodology to investigate the technology. Impressively, ChatGPT’s output often aligned with key themes in the research. However, as it currently stands, ChatGPT runs the risk of positioning itself as the ultimate epistemic authority, where a single truth is assumed without a proper grounding in evidence or presented with sufficient qualifications. Key ethical concerns associated with AI include its potential environmental impact, issues related to content moderation, and the risk of copyright infringement. It is important for educators to model responsible use of ChatGPT, prioritise critical thinking, and be clear about expectations. ChatGPT is likely to be a useful tool for educators designing science units, rubrics, and quizzes. Educators should critically evaluate any AI-generated resource and adapt it to their specific teaching contexts. ChatGPT was used as a research tool for assistance with editing and to experiment with making the research narrative clearer. The intention of the paper is to act as a catalyst for a broader conversation about the use of generative AI in science education.

In recent years, higher education (HE) globally has witnessed extensive adoption of technology, particularly in teaching and research. The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) further accelerates this trend. However, the increasing sophistication of GenAI tools has raised concerns about their potential to automate teaching and research processes. Despite widespread research on GenAI in various fields, there is a lack of multicultural perspectives on its impact and concerns in HE. This study addresses this gap by examining the usage, benefits, and concerns of GenAI in higher education from a multicultural standpoint. We employed an online survey that collected responses from 1217 participants across 76 countries, encompassing a broad range of gender categories, academic disciplines, geographical locations, and cultural orientations. Our findings revealed a high level of awareness and familiarity with GenAI tools among respondents. A significant portion had prior experience and expressed the intention to continue using these tools, primarily for information retrieval and text paraphrasing. The study emphasizes the importance of GenAI integration in higher education, highlighting both its potential benefits and concerns. Notably, there is a strong correlation between cultural dimensions and respondents’ views on the benefits and concerns related to GenAI, including its potential as academic dishonesty and the need for ethical guidelines. We, therefore, argued that responsible use of GenAI tools can enhance learning processes, but addressing concerns may require robust policies that are responsive to cultural expectations. We discussed the findings and offered recommendations for researchers, educators, and policymakers, aiming to promote the ethical and effective integration of GenAI tools in higher education.

This book presents a systematic review on traditional Arab herbal medicine including historical background, medical innovations introduced by Arab physicians, common roots of Arab medicine and western medicine, methodology of drug discovery and therapy in Arabic and Islamic medicine, a state-of-the-art description of traditional Arab herbal.