By creating journals that put a premium on replicability, grant-funding agencies can revolutionize the publishing landscape.

The planet is getting warmer in catastrophic ways. And fear may be the only thing that saves us.

From bias in peer review and unfair allocation of grant funding to sexual harassment and a gender pay gap, the scientific community certainly has a lot of work to do.

PLOS welcomes Plan S as a 'decisive step towards the realisation of full open access'1, in particular the push it provides towards realization of a research process based on the principles of open science.

Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues.

The AHA fully supports broad access to the resources required to create new knowledge and share it as widely as possible. However, concerns about the principles set out in Plan S have led the AHA to write a letter to Coalition S members regarding the potential for harm to humanities scholarship.

There is no question that we are facing significant challenges and opportunities as the traditional publishing model begins to falter. How the academy positions itself at this moment will have consequences for years to come.

David Kernohan previews Adam Tickell's advice to the minister on open access.

Proponents of Open Science criticise the fact that Elsevier, one of the chief opponents to the progress of Open Science, will be helping to monitor the future of Open Science in Europe.

Milton Packer wonders if the time has come for instant replay.

Elsevier's Gaby Appleton expands on some of the themes she discussed during the recent STM Association's panel debate on 'The future of access" and the work Elsevier is doing in these areas.

The proposal known as Plan S has the admirable aim of achieving full OA across a wide swath of journal publications. But the path currently suggested has serious drawbacks that could jeopardize nonprofit science societies.

Does it matter that there's no record of the Plan S leader publishing in a peer-reviewed journal?

Elsevier's role in the EU's Open Science Monitor is examined more closely.

Wikipedia should be embraced by universities as an open-access source of information that can be the starting point for deeper research and learning, says John Lubbock.

The Belgian biologist fears for the future of the pioneering UK Dementia Research Institute after Brexit

Open Access mega-journals have in some academic disciplines become a key channel for communicating research. In others, however, they remain unknown. This article explores how authors’ perceptions of mega-journals differ across disciplines and are shaped by motivations associated with the multiple communities they function within.

Reporting results from a comprehensive survey of publishers in the German-speaking world, Christian Kaier and Karin Lackner explore the attitudes of smaller publishers towards open access, finding …

It’s tempting to think science gives a God’s-eye view of reality. But we forget the place of human experience at our peril.

A much-needed debunk of shortsighted comments about science investments.

Open Acess and Plan S in particular create a conflict between editorial quality and the cost of publication.

Scientific publishers charge so much that even Harvard can't afford it anymore. A new publishing infrastructure could help.

China appears to embrace Europe-led plan, but other countries are reluctant.

Science that is robust and reproducible will stimulate economic growth and social benefits, argue Marcus Munafò and Neil Jacobs 

The US focus of digital humanities in libraries seems to be shifting toward skills, tools and methods and away from collections and projects.

Despite the expansion of global Internet coverage and open access journals, research from outside of the United States and Europe is underrepresented. Open science could improve access and representation.

The FAIR principles were published in 2016 in a Scientific Data article titled 'FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship'. These were developed to aid in the discovery and reuse of research data.FAIR stands for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Data that meet these principles are more optimal for reuse and discoverability and in turn increase your research's exposure.Here's how your data is more FAIR when it's on Figshare.Illustration by Jason McDermott of RedPenBlackPen.

While 18,000 retractions may sound like a lot, that amount is clearly just a fraction of the total number of papers that are a problem, as surveys indicate.

Promising immunizations for diseases that affect mostly people in low- and middle-income countries need help getting to market.

Visionaries thought technology would change books. Instead, it's changed everything about publishing a book.