Articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often.

Publication bias, in which positive results are preferentially reported by authors and published by journals, can restrict the visibility of evidence against false claims and allow such claims to be canonized inappropriately as facts.

A study that assesses which specific title characteristics influence the likelihood of being included in the “Altmetric Top 100”.

Resources and Tips to Learn the Language

Evidence from Web of Science showing that English is increasingly being used as the dominating language from natural sciences and social sciences to arts and humanities.

Analysis casts doubt on fears that ‘publish or perish’ culture undermines quality.

The National Institutes of Health needs to make radical changes to ensure that biomedical research continues to thrive in the United States.

10 simple rules to help you get across the main idea of your paper.

A joint guide by the CNRS and the French Conference of University Presidents.

A basic set of rules to improve figure design and to explain some of the common pitfalls.

The Royal Society comments on Science and Technology Select Committee report.

An analysis focusing on the efficacy or durability of GM Bt crops and ties between the researchers carrying out these studies and the GM crop industry showing that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40% of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest (COI).

It is hard to see why some papers published in relatively obscure journals are highly cited, whilst others in more accessible outlets virtually ignored.

Main insights from the McKinsey Global Institute’s study "The Age of Analytics: Competing In A Data-Driven World" published in collaboration with McKinsey Analytics.

Results of a survey of Wellcome researchers to find out what they think about open research, how they practice it, and some of the barriers they face.

Prospective cohort study of unsolicited and unwanted academic invitations.

An empirical investigation using Web of Science and Altmetric data investigates how many papers are mentioned in policy-related documents. We find that less than 0.5% of the papers published in different subject categories are mentioned at least once in policy-related documents. Based on our results, we recommend that the analysis of (WoS) publications with at least one policy-related mention is repeated regularly (annually). Mentions in policy-related documents should not be used for impact measurement until new policy-related sites are tracked.

With the rise of Wikipedia as a first‐stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250...

Is expert opinion on impact congruent with citation numbers?

Withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

French, German, and UK's joint guidelines for high-quality publications in scientific journals.

Research performance of all Italian professors in the sciences over three consecutive four-year periods.

Universities’ responses to the changes in the institutional environment of research funding that the European Research Council represents.

A platform for displaying text-mined annotations as a means to link research articles with biological data

Seeking to accelerate research advances and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science—open data, open materials, and no patenting—across the institution.

A document that sets out the proposals of the four UK higher education funding bodies for the second Research Excellence Framework (REF) for the assessment of research in UK higher education institutions. The proposals seek to build on the first REF conducted in 2014, and to incorporate the principles identified in Lord Stern’s Independent Review of the REF.

Part one of a longitudinal study over three years about the behaviour of researchers under 35 who have yet to achieve established or tenured positions.

A few slides comparing ResearchGate, Academia, Mendeley and others.

Choice of data, methodology and indicators can produce seriously inconsistent results despite a common set of disciplines and countries.

Community driven paid reviews could work in conjunction with a feed-back loop to young scientists. This promote the integration of reviews into an academic career.