Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so many are forgotten in the long run?

There are wavelengths that people cannot see, there are sounds that people cannot hear, and maybe computers have thoughts that people cannot think.

the difference between those who do and those who might have done.

You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done.

The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly.

It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he’s got, and gets the best answer he can.

If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.

The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.

It doesn’t seem to me they have the desire for greatness; they lack the courage to do it.

The reading is necessary to know what is going on and what is possible. But reading to get the solutions does not seem to be the way to do great research. So I’ll give you two answers. You read; but it is not the amount, it is the way you read that counts.

You and Your Research

I have no formal research training, no degree, no official connections to the ‘traditional’ establishments of learning, education, an accrediting body, or really any official institution of science or learning. Nor can I say I’m really accountable to anything or anyone except myself when it comes to learning. Nonetheless I used to dream of being a scientist. Maybe that’s why I’ve never stopped learning and teaching myself in a variety of subjects/topics. As for the reliability of my knowledge/research, well, I guess that will only reveal itself with time.

The Feynman Technique is a mental model and learning strategy used to simplify any complex information. This study endeavors to provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the Feynman Technique as a heutagogy-based learning strategy that fits the e-learning landscape.

Feynman Technique as a Heutagogical Learning Strategy for Independent and Remote Learning

Recent disclosures of fraud and other highly questionable behavior in the conduct and reporting of scientific research have prompted scientists, their institutions, and the larger public to reexamine research practices and the present blend of formal and informal mechanisms intended to promote responsible research conduct. The traditional preference of scientists for autonomy over their own affairs as an alternative to increased public control makes it incumbent upon the scientific community to find ways to ensure that individual scientists are competent and perform according to high ethical standards. It is an effort that scientists are increasingly willing to undertake, both to ensure the integrity of science and to maintain public confidence in the scientific enterprise.

Treatment of Confidential or Proprietary Information

working with confidential or proprietary information creates special responsibilities on the part of scientists and engineers. There is a general disposition toward prescribing that confidential or proprietary information not be used or reported without permission from the persons from whom it was obtained. However, at least two societies (APA, ESA) identify explicit exceptions to this general prescription:

  • where withholding the information would present a clear danger to others or where it is appropriate to comply with a legal requirement (APA)
  • where confidentiality would contribute to “unnecessary or significant degradation of the environment” as well as jeopardize public health or safety (ESA).

Addressing Error or Misconduct

being responsible means acknowledging and correcting error when it is detected.

Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct

a less known aspect of Feynman’s multifaceted scientific work, centered about his interest in molecular biology, which came out around 1959 and lasted for several years. After a quick historical reconstruction about the birth of molecular biology, we focus on Feynman’s work on genetics with Robert S. Edgar in the laboratory of Max Delbruck, which was later quoted by Francis Crick and others in relevant papers, as well as in Feynman’s lectures given at the Hughes Aircraft Company on biology, organic chemistry and microbiology, whose notes taken by the attendee John Neer are available. An intriguing perspective comes out about one of the most interesting scientists of the XX century

When physics meets biology: a less known Feynman

Learning is broader than schooling, and informal science environments and experiences play a crucial role. These experiences can kick-start and sustain long-term interests that involve sophisticated learning.

Informal STEM - lifelong learning in science, technology, engineering, and math

scientists are thoroughly trained in research methodologies, analytical skills, and the ability to communicate with other scientists, they usually receive no explicit training in communication of scientific concepts to a layperson audience.

the most dramatic example of the negative consequences of poor communication between scientists and the public is the issue of climate change, where a variety of factors, not the least of which is a breakdown in the transmission of fundamental climate data to the general public, has contributed to widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientists and their research

Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training

The lack of research reproducibility has caused growing concern across various scientific fields [1–5]. Today, there is widespread agreement, within and outside academia, that scientific research is suffering from a reproducibility crisis. Researchers reach different conclusions—even when the same data have been processed—simply due to varied analytical procedures. As we continue to recognize this problematic situation, some major causes of irreproducible research have been identified. This, in turn, provides the foundation for improvement by identifying and advocating for good research practices (GRPs). Indeed, powerful solutions are available, for example, preregistration of study protocols and statistical analysis plans, sharing of data and analysis code, and adherence to reporting guidelines. Although these and other best practices may facilitate reproducible research and increase trust in science, it remains the responsibility of researchers themselves to actively integrate them into their everyday research practices.

Contrary to ubiquitous specialized training, cross-disciplinary courses focusing on best practices to enhance the quality of research are lacking at universities and are urgently needed.

Ten simple rules for good research practice

In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence…

Scientific Principles and Research Practices

Our nonprofit journals serve researchers and research stakeholders in transforming scholarly communication for the better and when it comes to scientific rigor and editorial integrity, we do not compromise. Working with our communities to inspire, implement, and enforce leading policies for ethical research conduct and academic integrity is a critical pillar of our mission to build an open, fair, and trustworthy foundation of knowledge that all can build from.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

Ethical Considerations in Research