The fall of a prominent food and marketing researcher may be a cautionary tale for scientists who are tempted to manipulate data and chase headlines.

How to step out from the shadow of your principal investigator.

Considering the future of research assessment, Elizabeth Gadd outlines how she believes research evaluation could be made better, fairer, and more meaningful. The resulting seven guiding principles…

A recent investigation led by an international group of journalists raised concerns over the scale of the problem of deceptive publishing practices, but the problem of predatory publishing was overstated while at the same time discrediting open access publishing.

Researchers should embrace negative results instead of accentuating the positive, which is one of several biases that can lead to bad science.

Blockchain technology is essentially a secure, distributed ledger that can serve as the foundation for many systems. It’s strange to think that something

Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. Submission fees deserve serious consideration.

Compiling the evidence from dozens of studies doesn't always bring clarity.

In academia's great migration, some researchers are at a disadvantage.

The measles outbreak in the United States and Europe keeps spreading despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. The cause? Science-denial.

Paul Benneworth and Kate Maxwell explain why we need public funding for science that creates truly public benefits.

We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them.

Stop blaming motherhood for a problem created by fathers.

They refuse to see me as a member of the professional and intellectual community.

Science chats with statistician John Ioannidis about "hyperprolific" authors.

Those who take on the global industry that traps research behind paywalls are heroes, not thieves, says George Monbiot.

Without affirmative action through gender quotas and targets, we will have another 30 years of glacial progress on gender equity in academia.

'Most highly cited' criterion is not the most appropriate.

Will Plan S deprive researchers of quality journal venues and of international collaborative opportunities, while disadvantaging scientists whose research budgets preclude paying and playing in this OA league?

Teams can work well, but co-leaders often don't.

The decision by The Review of Higher Education, a highly respected academic journal, to temporarily suspend submissions due to a backlog of more than two years’ worth of articles awaiting reviews or publication set off a twitter storm and much debate in the corridors of academia about the future of academic publishing, and in particular its very foundation, blind peer review. 

Scientists have the public’s trust, so the swell of fake news shouldn’t put them off communicating, says CEO of Science Media Centre.

The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad press. Some of the criticism is surely deserved, but the widespread notion that academia is morally superior is ridiculous, says Richard Grant.

A perspective from Germany's biggest network of doctoral researchers.

Girls are equally able at STEM-related subjects at school but are reluctant to choose them for a career. That is linked to a lack of confidence. We're only just starting to tackle the problem.

Nick Fowler and Gerard Meijer on the future of Open Access in Germany. Will the negotiations continue?

The battle for evidence-based reason may have to move elsewhere, says Jenny Rohn.

A new generation of scientists is confounding expectations and proving much more willing to engage with the public, not only because it benefits their development as researchers but also out of a sense of duty to society and a desire to have a positive impact on public perceptions of science.

Decision-makers need input from researchers on issues involving science and society.

Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record.