Search

Psychologists share tips for figuring out what's sapping your enthusiasm—and how to get it back.

The agency has updated its grant proposal guide, but its new use of "products" in the biosketch, in place of publications, is ambiguous.

Forgoing alarmist pronouncements, a National Academies committee makes sensible suggestions about how to address the workforce needs of the Department of Defense.

NASCAR is hiring mechanical engineers and aerodynamics scientists to shave milliseconds off lap times and push racecars to their limits.

Many Spanish trainees have been forced to start their doctorates without financial help.

The House Judiciary Committee invited experts to discuss the effects of high-skill immigration on the U.S. workforce, but there was little talk about what employers actually need.

The best and most popular stories of 2012, as chosen by readers and editors.

Despite what grad school admissions committees seem to believe, outside interests are good.

Identifying and addressing self-confidence issues can help early-career scientists make swifter progress.

Experts discussed how mentoring differs for minorities and how it can be tweaked to ensure that scientists don't hit a "mentoring glass ceiling."

One of the last sessions at the 2013 AAAS Annual Meeting looked at transformative research and the factors that facilitate it—or don't.

Recent political pronouncements would be laughable if they weren't potentially so harmful.

A recent NSF report finds that efforts to improve the representation of women, minorities, and people with disabilities in science and engineering are slow going.

In Vienna, Eastern and central European scientists gathered to network and learn how to be more competitive for ERC grants.

Scientists with an ability to work across fields can find exciting opportunities in biomaterials.

As maps have changed, so have mapmakers.

Science Careers looks at the pros and cons for young scientists to take part in interactive peer review processes both as authors and reviewers.
 

A more interactive peer-review process can help authors build recognition, increase their impact, and win priority for their scientific work.