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?

Canadian Science Publishing's Mary Seligy provides a primer on standards, XML and JATS4R, which is driving improved reusability of scholarly content.

100+ volunteers sharing their knowledge about Open Science and contributing to what they see as an extremely important issue in nowadays and future science.

Taxpayers sometimes have to pay three times for any scientific article. 

If you’re a researcher writing software, this guide will show you how to make the work you share on GitHub citable.

Global comparisons of previous social and economic upheavals suggest that what is to come depends on where you are now, argues Robert C. Allen.

Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.

A new study highlights the variety of productivity trajectories among faculty members in computer science.

Philanthropy’s no replacement for crucial government science funding, but that message can get lost amid the high-profile gifts. Some science funders are now backing a push to protect federal funding.