This week, we received a press release that caught our attention: A company is releasing software it claims will write manuscripts using researchers’ data. 

We describe curation projects as a new category of GitHub project that collects, evaluates, and preserves resources for software developers.

Digital Science continued independence is the best way to have the biggest impact in supporting research, researchers, publishers, funders and research institutions around the world.

More than a dozen members of the editorial board at Scientific Reports have resigned after the journal decided not to retract a 2016 paper that a researcher claims plagiarized his work. As of this morning, 19 people — mostly researchers based at Johns Hopkins — had stepped down from the board.

Perverse incentives and the misuse of quantitative metrics have undermined the integrity of scientific research.

Nature seems to have a regular penchant for mocking scientists’ hopes and expectations.

A survey on open access books, revealed that of the 99 authors, 55.5% self-archived their chapters.

Academies are not information distribution devices. They are communities of human development.

The latest medical innovation to spring from Aled Edwards’s University of Toronto lab isn’t a new protein structure or potential drug target – it’s a business model.

Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal.

Paul Shannon, Head of Technology, looks at the costs of running eLife’s own continuous publication platform four months after the launch of eLife 2.0.

The case for “blinding” to make journal peer review fair seems less and less plausible to me for the long run. It even seems antithetical to ultimately reducing the problems it’s a bandaid solution for.

A handful of companies are luring away top researchers, but academics say they are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.

Recognize women who changed science with this free collection of print-at-home posters.

Elizabeth Gadd takes a look at the contradictions between scholarly culture and copyright culture, and the cognitive dissonance created.

Have you ever crossed international borders with protein crystals in a big Styrofoam hand luggage, set your hair on fire, or forgotten to use the extractor and nearly gassed your co-workers?

Sure, it’s happened to all of us — the invitation to be keynote speaker at a conference you’ve never heard of or an invitation to sit on an editorial board for a journal with a name you don’t recognize.

Students taking Stanford’s Advanced Topics in Networking class have to select a networking research paper and reproduce a result from it as part of a three-week pair project.

Scholarly profile pages constructed from queries to information in Wikidata.

Encouraging researchers to post their outputs as preprints.

On the slow but steady rise of Open Access.

Michele Marchetto of Wikimedia Italia shares the story of how they helped authors to make their open access articles more widely available.

The opportunities and experiences of blogging as part of teaching.

The Case of the EPA, John Konkus, and Climate Change.

Maybe there isn't a peer-review 'crisis,' at least in terms of quantity.

The author line provides no adequate information on the qualitative contribution of the single persons listed.

In analyzing the marketplace of scholarly publishers and scientific workflow providers, a key strategic question is: Who owns Digital Science?

Two scientists set out to animate how sperm moves. They ended up making a major discovery.

Last week's Transforming Research conference in Baltimore, MD, gathered a range of speakers across the academic and professional spectrum.

How many scientists does it take to change the world?