The transparency of the peer-review process is an indicator of peer-review quality.

This study shows that the long-run patterns of international scientific collaboration are generating a convergence between applied and basic fields. This convergence of collaboration patterns across research fields might be one of contributing factors that supports the evolution of scientific disciplines.

A method that could be used by funding agencies, universities and scientific policy decision makers for hiring and funding purposes, and to complement existing methods to rank universities and countries.

Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind.

By 2025, all scholarly publication activity in Austria should be Open Access: the final versions of all scholarly publications resulting from the support of public resources must be freely accessible on the Internet without delay (Gold Open Access).

A broad base of quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise.

Response to the recommendations of an external High Level Expert Group and a Staff Working Document in which the Commission services have evaluated FP7.

One of the strongest beliefs in scholarly publishing is that journals seeking a high impact factor should be highly selective. There is evidence showing this is wrong.

A Harvard professor reveals how his hiring committee whittles down the pile of job applications.

Researchers are “choosing their lottery numbers after seeing the draw”, making medicine less reliable - and respected journals are letting them do it.

Report to the Swiss Science and Innovation Council SSIC.

A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors.

A shortlist of recommendations to promote gender equality in science and stimulate future efforts to level the field.

Highly Cited Researchers in 2015 according to Thomson Reuters.

Replication studies are rare and only a few had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis.

Scientists perform a tiny subset of all possible experiments. What characterizes the experiments they choose? And what are the consequences of those choices for the pace of scientific discovery?

Assessing diversity for a sustainable research base.

Report examining employment and earnings outcomes for Ph.D. recipients.

Analyzing three decades' worth of PubMed-indexed abstracts, scientists find a notable increase in the frequency of positive words, like "innovative" and "novel", over time.

Study examining whether NIH funded articles that were archived in PMC after the release of the 2008 NIH Public Access Policy show greater scholarly impact than comparable articles not archived in PMC.

Grantsmanship and service activities appeared as the most critical factors associated with faculty burnout.

Biology top journals share original data at the highest rate, and physics top journals share at the lowest rate.

Study presenting evidence for the existence of a citation advantage within astrophysics for papers that link to data.

The distribution of p-values in reported medical abstracts provides evidence for systematic error in the reporting of p-values..

An analysis of the essential tension identifies institutional forces that sustain tradition and suggestions of policy interventions to foster innovation.

A paper proposing an index (namely, the L-index) that does not depend on the number of publications, accounts for different co-author contributions and age of publications, and scales from 0.0 to 9.9.

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose.

Results from a national survey of US scientists.

An empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes.

Whether and how gender affects the selection of reviewers.