A road map for the founding entrepreneur who seeks to retain the CEO position as a company gains market traction and begins a period of rapid growth.

A handbook for Open Access good practice.

The implications for conference program committees of adopting single-blind reviewing.

A better understanding of uncertainty may help improve analysis and meta-analysis of data, and help scientists and the public have more realistic expectations of what scientific results imply.

Statistical information about the participation of these three groups in science and engineering education and employment.

The different options to achieve open access, whether by journals changing their revenue structures from subscription to publishing charges, or authors utilizing a number of options for posting open access versions of article manuscripts in repositories.

How open licenses can simplify international research when multiple research projects are involved and when projects have ended.

A publication that shows that many approaches in neuroscience, when used naïvely, fall short of producing a meaningful understanding.

Even women researchers are more likely to choose men to review their academic papers.

The social capital of open science

Science, technology, and innovation are vital to America’s economy and workforce, and the competitiveness of U.S. industry. The authors offer five recommendations to ensure the establishment of an effective White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

A set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt.

The work could lead to a new approach to the study of what is possible, and how it follows from what already exists.

Elsevier’s Open Access journals as of 2016.

Evidence that women and men are judged differently when they co-author papers.

How can firms benefit most under economic downturns?

A survey of 2,955 readers of 40 randomly selected science blogs.

While postdocs are necessary for entry into tenure-track jobs, they do not enhance salaries in other job sectors over time.

Among the wider scientific community, there is a widespread dissatisfaction with the current level of transparency and reproducibility in published research and, as part of our response to this, we signed up to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines (https://cos.io/top/).The objective of the TOP guidelines is to encourage transparency, openness and reproducibility in science. By developing shared standards for openness across journals, it is hoped to change the current incentive structures to drive researchers' behaviour towards more openness.

A series of measures improving research efficiency and robustness of scientific findings by directly targeting specific threats to reproducible science.

The potential for open scholarship to improve university research and education, as well asincrease the impact universities can have beyond their own walls.

Time devoted to research is increasingly precious to us in academia. We chastise ourselves for not being able to keep up with the huge volumes of current literature. If only there was some way that all the latest literature on a particular topic could be packaged together for us, and delivered right to our inbox without us even having to lift a finger! Now, what would we call such an improbable utopia – ah yes, peer review.

A set of best practices for scientific software development, based on research and experience, that will improve scientists' productivity and the reliability of their software.

Using Census Data to Inform Policy and Career Decision-Making

Principles promote access to Federal government-supported scientific data and research findings for international scientific cooperation

Answers of the annual Edge.org question posed to leading thinkers and scientists.
 

Highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers.

Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts.

Searching Google Scholar in 16 languages revealed that 35.6% of 75,513 scientific documents on biodiversity conservation published in 2014 were not in English.

A current debate about conflicts of interest related to biomedical research is to question whether the focus on financial conflicts of interest overshadows “nonfinancial” interests that could put scientific judgment at equal or greater risk of bias.