Elsevier explains the thought process behind its new journal impact metrics.

Sociologist Matthijs Rooduijn explains why the darkening political mood must force academics to step up and choose sides.

The measurement of Impact Factor – how many citations a publication or a researcher is able to attract, is one of the most controversial yet most widely used quality indicators in science.

How to address high tech’s missing XX factor

Promises made by researchers to participants to elicit the truth may not be worth the paper their written on if the courts can bulldoze though them.

Two men came to Zurich. Their mission: to persuade Albert Einstein to join them in Berlin...

Writers from the Guardian’s science blog network pick out the books from across the cultural spectrum that delighted them most this year

Fellow Congress members should rely on peer-reviewed science, not fake news.

Dwindling gains in science, medicine and technology hold back growth; is America too risk-averse?

Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies — and harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back, argues Phil Williamson.

Technology and practice can help shy and introverted researchers to succeed when reticence is risky.

As the far-reaching Higher Education and Research Bill reaches the House of Lords, further amendments are needed to ensure it succeeds in its aims

MIT president L. Rafael Reif writes that in the 1970s government spending on fundamental research was 2% of GDP. That’s how to beat cancer, climate change and more.

Job insecurity and the impact it is having on family life.

To claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present piles of these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. It is, therefore, worth examining to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

The quality of scientific publications will benefit from a revolution in the peer review models.

Women are still underrepresented in terms of authorships, including first and/or last authorships (whichever is more prestigious), coauthorships, and in the granting of scientific prizes.

Science fraud draws attention, but most scientists think it’s a far lesser threat to their field than the many times researchers cut corners.

In an era of online discussion, debate must remain nuanced and courteous.

An opinion piece on Open Access by Sir Timothy Gowers

From clarity to confusion, Rebecca Pool looks at the highs and lows of data sharing in scholarly publishing

If politicians can lie without condemnation, what are scientists to do? Kathleen Higgins offers some explanation.

The Big Data era, the impact of data science and its impact biological research and healthcare: interview with Phil Bourne.

‘Irreversible’ damage to UK science from a hard Brexit will eclipse any harm caused in the US by a Trump presidency, says new Nobel laureate

But grave challenges remain before the promise of individually tailored medicine becomes reality.

The number of Ph.D. graduates from underrepresented groups grew by 9x since 1980, but the number of assistant professors from those groups grew by just 2.6x.

What is lost when disadvantaged students are forced to commodify their backgrounds for the sake of college admissions?

Without access to large companies' datasets or the expertise to analyse them, research is confronted with a replication crisis and is vulnerable to commercial motivations.

Theoretical models of how science works provide valuable insights, says Philip Ball.

The winners in Trump's America were likely to be the defence industry, oil and energy, private prisons, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Not health. What should be the response of the public health community?