How to make widespread open data a reality.

An analysis of a collection of open-access datasets quantifies their benefit to the scientific community.

The evidence suggests limits to industry's willingness to fund R&D vacated by the federal government, should Congress go along with the White House's.

The New York Times Magazine story on Amy Cuddy brings up extremely important problems in science. But we cannot equate criticism with harassment.

Hindawi’s CEO, Paul Peters, explains the problems inherent in proprietary solutions for Open Science infrastructure and presents a proposal for how things can be done differently.

Why Greek and Latin medical terminology is better off dead.

Young firms struggle to compete as deep-pocketed companies like Facebook and Amazon clone products and consolidate their power.

What can be done to preserve the monograph.

The threat to US science does not come from scientists' assumptions, their commitment to investigator-initiated research or the research community's failure to tackle problems of public concern. It comes from an unrealistic system of draconian budget caps that stifle investment in the future.

Imagine a connected online web of scientific knowledge… tightly integrated with a scientific social web that directs scientists’ attention where it is most valuable, releasing enormous collaborative potential.

As artificial intelligence puts many out of work, we must forge new economic, social and educational systems, argues Yuval Noah Harari.

Brian C. Martinson imagines how rationing the number of publications a scientist could put out might improve the scientific literature.

Staid and conformist, science risks losing its creative spark. Does it need more mavericks, or are they part of the problem?

Professors and aspiring professors are complicit in perpetuating a rigged system.

When a scientific paper is retracted, it can produce long-term aftershocks.

Non-profit is not synonymous with good, and for-profit is not synonymous with exploitation.

This inequality needs to be addressed now.

They distort the nature of the scientific enterprise, rewrite its history, and overlook many of its most important contributors.

Alfred Nobel didn’t foresee the current era of mega scientific collaboration.

Jenny Rohn: Restricting Nobel prizes to three individuals has always been problematic, and increasingly glosses over the contributions of everyday scientists.

While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.

There is an urgent need by research communities and public agencies to collaboratively reclaim the infrastructure around the academic knowledge production process.

This week’s Nobel winners will have drawn on teams, often multinational.

In 1991, an electronic system through which interested parties could access non-peer-reviewed physics papers was launched by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Bad research just doesn’t affect the people in the area around it, the people who might spend years trying to take a dodgy result and extend it.

Once again, the term "open" requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.

How and why we should get rid of author lists in scientific publications.

Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.

Research institutions should explicitly seek job candidates who can be frankly self-critical of their work, says Jeffrey Flier.