Shannon had a weakness for juggling and unicycles, but his fingerprints are on every electronic device we own.

Scholarly publishing is broken.

A One-Word Explanation

The impact factor is academia’s worst nightmare. So much has been written about its flaws, both in calculation and application, that there is little point in reiterating the same tired points here …

In response to rising concerns about irreproducible science and the lack of somewhere to openly discuss these issues, we recently launched the Preclinical Reproducibility and Robustness Channel.

Empowering the Next Generation to Advance Open Access, Open Education and Open Data.

Supporting Europe's innovators through open innovation - 2014-2019

Who reads science blogs, and why? This broad question started this Experiment.com project, and now the results are in.

There is increasing support in the scholarly communications community for “flipping” the standard journal publishing model from subscription-based to “gold” open access...

The replicability of psychological research is surprisingly low. Why? In this blog post I present new evidence showing that questionable research practices contributed to failures to replicate psyc…

You all know about publication bias, don't you? Sure you do. It's the tendency to publish research that has bold, affirmative results and ignore research that concludes there's nothing going on.

I get the feeling that some researchers regard public, post-publication peer review as a non-rigorous, non-structured and poor alternative to traditional peer review...

This week, FORCE2016 is taking place in Portland, USA. The FORCE11 yearly conference is devoted to the utilisation of technological and open science advancements towards a new-age scholarship founded on easily accessible, organised and reproducible research data.

And fixing it won't be easy

The interface between science and business is where innovation is brought to life, but do the two fields always get along?

At ScienceOpen, there’s nothing more we like than good news for open science! That’s why we’re happy this week to see ORCID announcing a new partnership with the DFG, the German R…

How can research funders ensure ‘unlucky’ applications are handled more appropriately?

Speech by Bjørn Haugstads, State Secretary to the Norwegian Minister of Education and Research

We are releasing a new version of Impactstory!

It is an unfortunate convention of science that research should pretend to be reproducible; our top tips will help you mitigate this fussy conventionality, enabling you to enthusiastically showcase your irreproducible work.

What if I told you that you don't need journals to do peer review?

Please make it stop.

After many and long conversations among colleagues within and beyond the Scholarly Kitchen about what researchers need to know about scholarly publishing.

Why does the impact factor continue to play such a consequential role in academia? Alex Rushforth and Sarah de Rijcke look at how considerations of the metric enter in from early stages of research…

Athene Donald weighs up a survey of workplace changes designed to avoid gender bias.

Meet accused hacker and copyright infringer Alexandra Elbakyan.

Authors have, in general, a positive view on open access, but other factors are more important in choosing a place of publication for an academic article.

Rejection hurts more when you don't have a long-term contract to fall back on, says Helen Lees.

Professor Matthew Wallenstein wants to bring what he has learned as an entrepreneur to his colleagues in academia.

For 16th century zoologists, it was like Google's arrival. Rather than punch a keyboard, they could thumb over Conrad Gessner’s sensational work.