We know that those Open Access policies that work are the ones that have teeth. Both institutional and funder policies work better when tied to reporting requirements.

We explore the feasibility and consequences of a Biblioleaks event for researchers, journals, publishers, and the broader communities of doctors and the patients they serve.

Researchers have put numbers on the “file drawer” phenomenon, in which scientists abandon results that they believe journals are unlikely to publish.

Sometimes, the brightest stars in science decide to leave. Nature finds out where they go.

Annual figures: offers of admission from U.S. graduate schools to prospective international students.

Introduction to the topics being discussed at the Auckland conference on ‘Science Advice to Governments’.

A number of suggestions for the new AAAS open access journal Science Advances.

The new EU data protection regulations adopted earlier this year by the European Parliament would undermine important research using personal data.

Papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period.

Switzerland is the world’s most innovative economy, followed by Sweden, Singapore, Hong Kong and Finland, according to the GII 2014.

Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review.

Position paper issued by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.

While social media is a valuable tool for outreach and the sharing of ideas, there is a danger that this form of communication is gaining too high a value and that we are losing sight of key metrics of scientific value, such as citation indices.

This paper provides a glimpse of genesis of altmetrics in measuring efficacy of scholarly communications. This paper also highlights available altmetric tools and social platforms linking altmetric tools, which are widely used in deriving altmetric scores of scholarly publications.

The 1st Altmetrics Conference: London, 25.-26.9.2014

Open access science articles are read and cited more often than articles available only to subscribers, a study has suggested.

It is known that statistically significant results are more likely to be published than results that are not statistically significant. We conducted a search in the abstracts of papers published between 1990 and 2014. The results indicate that negative results are not disappearing, but have actually become 4.3 times more prevalent since 1990. Positive results, on the other hand, have become 13.9 times more prevalent since 1990.

This document is the annual work programme for the European Research Council funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

Earlier this year, at a symposium organized by Nature in Melbourne, Australia, a group of leading academics, funders and government advisers discussed how research outcomes are measured. This Nature Outlook was influenced by these debates.

Retractions of scientific papers have recently been in the spotlight. Unfortunately, the interpretation of statistics about them is often flawed. Evidence suggests that retractions have grown not because of rising misconduct, but because scientists have become more aware of and responsive against fraudulent and flawed research.

An open research proposal calling for open research proposals and funding transparency.

Young researchers, especially women, are more likely to be sexually harassed or assaulted when they are doing fieldwork than in the office.

Libraries are in a good position to push Open Access even further, as they currently fully pay the production costs of the traditional subscription model.

Realising the innovative potential of digital research methods: a call from the research community.

America is a leader in funding for biomedical research, from government, industry, and the non-profit sector. And, for such a large country, the research community is remarkably spread out, with high-quality work being done in every region of the nation.

With responses to both the 2013 and 2014 survey given side-by-side, you can easily see how attitudes have changed. Alongside this, the 2014 survey explores many new areas and gives a fascinating insight into authors' current perceptions of open access.

Using our data to predict tomorrow's biggest scientific and technological breakthroughs.

The desire for better evidence for public management, a growing movement calling for open access to the results of publicly funded research and the vastly increased power of computing and communications coincide to support policy interest in steering and sharing research results and data about them.

Male PI prefer male Postdocs.

Highly fragmented and competitive system can undermine efforts to foster groundbreaking research.