Lecturer Rachel Moss on the casualties of a demanding academic culture.

Theme: Serving Society Through Science Policy.

Free Reddit online classes

Researchers across Harvard received a record-high $842.5 million in grants in fiscal year 2016—but some say they are bracing for federal funding cuts under the Trump administration and seeking alternative sources of research support.

Empowering researchers to publish Open Access by bringing transparency to Article Processing Charges.

Two professors at the University of Washington want to teach students how to survive the avalanche of false or misleading data shaken loose by shifts in media, technology, and politics.

Data on cost of Access & APCs.

Collaborate with academic experts to increase the scientific impact of your work

Open Science efforts like arXiv and PLoS ONE should follow GitHub’s lead and embrace the social web.

10 recommendations from us to kick-start the New Year with an Open Science bang.

What does it mean to be a biohacker, and is this a new revolution for science?

Make peer review free (as in freely accessible, as well as cost-free) and open for all academics.

Choose the right journal for your research.

Impactstory's thoughts about Sci-Hub.

Some of the major mistakes early career researchers make when preparing and submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal.

The 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing, 6 - 8 June, 2017, Limassol, Cyprus.

In a sweeping manifesto, researchers from the U.S. and Europe have proposed some fixes for vetting published science. It might help science journalism, too.

Research can produce good evidence to inform local, national and international policy that, in turn, has the potential to transform lives for the better. But influencing policy is neither easy nor automatic – you need to want to do it. To be successful, you need to be open to different ways of working. Here are 10 things you need to know.

Traditionally, at the beginning of the new year we celebrated what is known as Public Domain Day: on the first of January of any given year the works of authors who have been dead for more than 70 years enter the public domain. As this is a decisive year for copyright reform in the European Union, it seems much more important to highlight the dangers for the public domain that we are facing in the context of the copyright reform process.

A committment by a young researcher to practice open and good science, and more generally to free culture.

An exciting list of topics and concepts around the future of the paper.

Envisioning the scientific paper of the future.

Groups of authors citing each other is becoming an issue in scientific publishing. With a new approach, researchers discuss how to identify the problem.

Cutting-edge research, international collaboration and full funding: the project sounded too good to be true. It was.

We wanted to share with you some of the awesome science innovations and disruptors from the last year. This is our list.

There are a few red flags to look out for when reading about new scientific discoveries that can help you spot dodgy or unreliable work.

Neuroskeptic« No Need To Worry About False Positives in fMRI?What Happens to Rejected Papers?By Neuroskeptic | January 3, 2017 2:43 pm32The pain of rejection is one that every scientist has felt: but what happens to papers after they’re declined by a journal?In a new study, researchers Earnshaw et al. traced the fate of almost 1,000 manuscripts which had been submitted to and rejected by ear, nose and throat journal Clinical Otolaryngology between 2011 to 2013.

232 new predatory open-access publishers over 2016.

Having examined the organisation of Europe’s academic labour markets, Alexandre Afonso outlines the main differences between countries across the continent. There is greatest variance in two …

As I was thinking about casting my vote for the Open Science Prize, I realized that I would in fact need a rubric for choosing. I was concerned that the public vote would tend towards popularity, familiarity, or bling, rather than the quality of the open science. But what does it mean to be “quality open science?” What should be the most important criteria?