Investigating solutions for frustrated scholars, nonprofits, independent learners, and the rest of us.

It turns out, it’s not easy to dig out online who’s been who at the peak of major science agencies.

Open data is gaining ground, but is there a revenue stream that would help journals recover the costs of gathering, reviewing and publishing data?

The Highly Cited Researchers list represents some of the world’s most influential minds, as determined by an analysis of citations in Web of Science.

Why you should use them, and how to do it well.

Does press coverage ever lead to papers’ rejection?

A collection of web-browser plug-ins is making the scholarly literature more discoverable.

Short summary of white paper that shows how sloppy writing and sloppy quality control lead to a non-existing article being cited nearly 400 times.

The number of researchers in upper and lower middle-income countries has doubled between 2002 and 2014.

An open, dynamic and collaborative knowledge environment that systematically captures, organizes and categorizes research outcomes, best practices, tools, and guidelines.

This post is about a prototype ‘network’ approach to finding papers using data from Google Scholar.

Imagine succinct, up-to-date information, not for software projects but for modern research publications.

Why pursue knowledge for its own sake?

What are the effects of geographical variations in personal and corporate taxes on the location decisions of innovative individuals and companies?

Teaching digital tools for reproducible and transparent research

As new ways emerge to assess research, Alex Csiszar recalls how the first one transformed the practice and place of science in society.

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.