Hello Nature readers, would you like to get this Briefing in your inbox free every day? Sign up here.
Close up view of an unidentified man's hands turning pages of a printed manuscript where some words have been highlighted.
Trials suggest that offering payment can increase the chance of a researcher agreeing to review, and in some cases speed up the process.Credit: Catherine Falls Commercial/Getty
What happens when you pay reviewers?
Two journals have released data from their own experiments that suggest that offering payments of around US$250 to researchers who review manuscripts speeds up the process, without affecting the quality of reviews. A six-month experiment at Critical Care Medicine, led by clinical scientist David Maslove, found that the motivating effect on reviewers was small. That might be down to “these other values that peer reviewers have, whether it’s a sense of responsibility or loyalty or owing to society”, says Maslove. At Biology Open, payment speeded up reviews so much that the journal is rolling it out more widely. But some specialists warn that the practice could have unintended consequences for science and publishing.
Nature | 6 min read
Reference: Critical Care Medicine paper & bioRxiv preprint (not peer reviewed)
Lyft data shows speeding-ticket racism
Data from more than 200,000 drivers working for the ridesharing company Lyft in Florida suggest that racial profiling plays a role in traffic citations and fines. Researchers found no detectable differences in speeding or traffic violations between white drivers and a group that included Asian and Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic drivers. But minority drivers were 33% more likely to be cited for speeding and paid 34% more money in fines.
Ars Technica | 4 min read
Read more: Lyft data help to overcome the limitations of standard police datasets, write computational social scientist Dean Knox and political scientist Jonathan Mummolo in their accompanying Perspective article. (Science | 8 min read)
Reference: Science paper
Trump’s dismantling of US science
Grant cuts are ending science careers
Many scientists who do research at US universities draw most of their salaries from grant money from outside sources. With federal grants being cancelled or cut by the administration of US president Donald Trump, some researchers face an end to their projects, or even the end of their careers. For example, social-science researcher Jeremy Springman had five federal grants before February; now his last, from the US Department of Defense, is gone. High-temperature geochemist Valerie Finlayson says she might have to abandon basic research to get industry funding. “I’m watching these attempts to dismantle everything that I’ve built my life around,” she says.
Nature | 6 min read
How Trump follows ‘Project 2025’ plan
Despite disavowing it during his campaign, US president Donald Trump has closely hewed to a policy plan known as Project 2025, published by a right-wing think-tank called The Heritage Foundation. Some of the science-related recommendations that have already been implemented include opposing diversity efforts, defunding climate science and green energy projects and cutting funds to universities. Areas mentioned in the document that could come to the fore include a prohibition on fetal-tissue research and an end to visas for students from some countries. Perhaps Trump’s broadest deviation from Project 2025 is from the guidebook’s repeated commitment to ensuring “American science dominance” — whereas Trump’s cuts will weaken the country’s science infrastructure, say researchers.
Nature | 7 min read
Francis Collins: ‘We got trouble’
Geneticist Francis Collins, the former director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), is known for leading the Human Genome Project, co-discovering the genetic cause of cystic fibrosis, talking about his Christian faith and grabbing the opportunity to whip out his guitar. He did the latter at a ‘Stand Up for Science’ rally thismonth to protest cuts to the NIH and the firing of NIH staff. “I felt I needed to be part of speaking out about why this is, for the average American, not a good idea,” he tells Time. “Taking a hammer to this amazing life-saving enterprise should concern you.”
Time | 14 min read
Features & opinion
How to overcome six barriers to net zero
Lucas Joppa and Elizabeth Willmott were once the principal architects of Microsoft’s carbon-negative commitment, and have influenced more than US$1 billion in activities related to carbon reduction and removal. “Although we have a deep conviction that net zero can work, we know it has issues,” they write. “A premature desire for perfection, overly precise guidelines for implementation, insufficient flexibility in carbon accounting, unhelpful constraints on collaboration and a disproportionate focus on the actions of others all combine to slow down the net-zero transformation just when it needs to speed up.” They outline six roadblocks to decarbonization, and how to overcome them.
Nature | 12 min read
Where I work
In a split level shot, a small remotely operated vehicle with lights moves through clear blue water, operated by Gemma Galbraith who is standing up in a motor boat visible above the surface of the water
Gemma Galbraith is a marine ecologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia.Credit: Victor Huertas/Hoey Reef Ecology Lab
Coral reefs that thrive deep beneath the surface are relatively understudied, says marine ecologist Gemma Galbraith. “An analogy would be a botanist not studying any sections of the plant below the ground.” In this photo, Galbraith is surveyingreefs in Australia using a remote operated vehicle equipped with a camera. Her husband and colleague, Ben Cresswell, is holding the tether and skipper Casey Castro is steering the boat. “It’s a challenge when you’re floating in the middle of nowhere getting sunburnt and dehydrated. Sometimes, seabirds land on Ben’s head,” she says. “Afterwards, you can reset, shoo away the birds and get some electrolytes. We haven’t lost a robot yet.” (Nature | 3 min read) (Victor Huertas/Hoey Reef Ecology Lab)
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“The genius of its business model was not simply to get you to volunteer this personal data to a private company, but to persuade you to actually pay to give it to them… And what did you get in exchange? A scientific trinket.”
Geneticist Adam Rutherford sheds no tears for the demise of genetic-testing company 23andMe, which he says was “perpetuating a deterministic view of genetics that is outmoded and wrong”. (The Guardian | 6 min read)