Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

A new tool that selects peer reviewers by algorithm could make the peer review process more reliable, says Richard Price

An open-source approach to the problem of producing an off-patent drug in enantiopure form serves as an example of how academic and industrial researchers can join forces to make new scientific discoveries that could have a huge impact on human health.

Open access to research is still held back by misunderstandings repeated by people who should know better, says Peter Suber.

Many of the biggest problems in science are tackled through sustained efforts over years or decades. But if science is a long-term endeavour, why are funding and careers so fixated on the now? Guest post by Andrew Holding.

Science communication should be more than the dissemination of results to the public; it should also flow in the other direction, with members of the public able to communicate their priorities to scientists and those who fund them. But how?

Peer review is one of the oldest and most respected instruments of quality control in science and research. Peer review means that a paper is evaluated by a number of experts on the topic of the article (the peers). The criteria may vary, but most of the time they include methodological and technical soundness, scientific relevance, and presentation.

The events that culminated in the resignation of Bora Zivkovic from Scientific American last week demonstrate that women in science face a long struggle to root out sexism.

The physicist Richard Feynman liked to gripe about what he called "Alfred Nobel's Other Mistake." The first mistake was the invention of dynamite. The second was creating the Nobel Prizes.

Following Nature's Future of Publishing special issue this spring, Science has just published a similar series of articles. Needless to say, there is a definite ideological bent to the articles included in both and more misleading information about open access.

Fury is the word the minister of science and technology used on the weekend to describe his feelings about the misappropriation of scientific research funds.

Why must female scientists be portrayed as young white women in white coats with pen holders, wearing black-rimmed glasses which, when removed, reveal Julia Roberts?

Public engagement should be an integral part of research, not an unpaid hobby, which is why the Wellcome Trust has decided to invest £4.5m a year in it.

Privately owned publications threaten to cut to the bone of intellectual freedom in science, writes author.