An introduction to research data management and sharing, starting Jun 19.

There is a movement within the scientific community that asks for greater collaboration between research teams. The idea is that with greater access to information, more people working separately on the same problems can solve them more efficiently and with the greatest transparency.

Yes, but only if you are a novice.

The biomedical research enterprise strives to be a meritocracy, but structural inequities and the reliance on nonscientific proxies such as journal impact and university prestige present roadblocks.

Now we know how suppression decisions are made, should metrics companies suppress titles at all or simply make the underlying data more transparent?

Glen Wright on the lighter side of scholarly collaboration

New report from influential group recommends ditching large-scale projects in favour of funding outstanding individual researchers, getting rid of submission deadlines and awarding smaller grants to make the pie go further.

Public Knowledge Project - PKP is a multi-university initiative developing (free) open source software and conducting research to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing.

In this article Robert Harington assesses the Diamond open access model for society journal publishing.

Today we’re rolling out new features in Sheets that make it even easier for you to visualize and share your data, and find insights your teams can act on.

Putting together applications and seeking nominations can bring their own professional rewards

Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.

Is citation manipulation a moral problem or an accounting problem?

We find Nature Research's critical attitude towards journal impact factors, embodied in its signing of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA; Nature 544, 394; 2017), to be inconsistent with the aims of its Nature Index.

What do they mean for Science and Research?

With competition for research funding approaching an all-time high, experts reveal their top tips and tricks.

What happens when an experiment is correct, but it's really hard to replicate? Are there research results that are accurate but not reproducible?

The scholarly process is ridden with single points of failures at all stages.

10 stories from users of the Open Access Button on why they need research to be freely available.

At the Researcher to Reader conference, a volunteer project called Project Cupcake was launched to define a new suite of indicators to help researchers judge publishers, rather than the other way around.

Exploring the diverse pathways traveled by science, engineering, and health doctorates as they progress through their careers.

Continuous data validation, as a service.

Charlie Rapple highlights the case of Diego Gómez, a Columbian researcher facing prison for sharing someone else's thesis via Scribd.

Relying just on numbers to assess gender equality is insufficient because companies and researchers are smart enough to game the system.

An amusing case of plagiarism in a paper about plagiarism.

In this interview, we have a discussion with the co-founder of PaperHive, Alexander Naydenov about the impact PaperHive has had on ESL authors.

The imprimatur bestowed by peer review has a history that is both shorter and more complex than many scientists realize.

While preprints have been around since before arXiv.org launched in 1991, fields outside of physics are starting to push for more early sharing of research data, results and conclusions.

The business of scholarship.