Written agreements between parties in research collaborations are not a sign of a lack of faith.

Giving staff and students a say in how institutions are run would strengthen governance and clip the wings of administrators.

New kinds of dogs, goats and monkeys are being made quickly, although scientists voice worries about ethics and whether the methods should be used on humans.

The traditional peer-reviewed publication model is fraying.

Interview with Dr. Michael Lauer on peer review of NIH grant applications and how it can be improved.

Michael Specter on CRISPR, a new technology that enables us to manipulate our genetic code with unprecedented ease, and which may lead to new cancer treatments.

Social media is shaking up how scientists talk about gender issues.

Over the past nine years, Canada has been a pretty dreary place for scientists.

The Eurosceptics say universities would be unaffected, or even improved, by a Brexit. They are wrong, says this vice-chancellor.

The use of journal impacts in evaluating individuals has its inherent dangers. In an ideal world, evaluators would read each article and make personal judgments.

Unique companies invest early and often to develop technology from the ivory tower.

Nosek et al. found that compared to simply asking experts to predict the likelihood that studies will be reproduced, asking them to bet money on the outcomes improved the accuracy of the guesses.

Turning research grants into loans risks stymieing successful industry

The international university ranking scene has become increasingly complex, confusing and controversial.

Open data fuels economic growth. Many believe in the theory and ask for the proof. A new report by Nesta and the ODI adds to the evidence of the impact of open data.

The editorial staff of a research journal have resigned to protest the company’s failure to embrace open access.

RELX share price is up 100 percent during the past five years and is now near its all-time high.

Biomedical research has faced criticism for being unreliable, but a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences might change all that.

Some research funders have mandated in recent years that studies they finance be published in open-access journals, but they've given little attention to ensuring those studies include accessible writing.

What benefit does a future scientist derive from knowing something about art and literature?

Technology companies know they have a gender and diversity problem in their work force, and they are finally taking steps to try to fix it.

While colleges often focus on increasing the diversity of their student body, educators say that same emphasis is necessary for hiring professors.

Publishers should apply consistent policies to correcting the published literature and adopt versioning. The scientific community ought to encourage corrections.

Scientific publishing has undergone a revolution in recent years - largely due to the internet. And it shows no sign of letting up as a growing number of countries attempt to ensure that research papers are made freely available. Publishers are struggling to adapt their business models to the new challenges.

As an institution, science is not fond of privilege. Success in science is supposed to be the result of merit - hard work, tenacity and, to some degree, sheer luck - not nepotism, favoritism, or entitlement.

Some scientists the long-awaited paper of the Blue Brain Project, a 10-year program spearheaded by neuroscientist Henry Markram, as proof that the idea of modeling a brain and all of its components is misguided and a waste of money.

Giving the same information to multiple scientific teams can lead to very different conclusions, a report published today in Nature shows.

The Welcome trust has collaborated with the government on several big capital projects, including Diamond Light Source in Oxfordshire and the new Francis Crick Institute laboratories.

Huge disparities in parts of the developing world offer important clues about how American men and women perceive the world in higher education today.

A new book argues for less focus on structures and funding for interdisciplinarity, and more on the everyday highs and lows of collaboration.