Brian C. Martinson imagines how rationing the number of publications a scientist could put out might improve the scientific literature.

Staid and conformist, science risks losing its creative spark. Does it need more mavericks, or are they part of the problem?

Professors and aspiring professors are complicit in perpetuating a rigged system.

When a scientific paper is retracted, it can produce long-term aftershocks.

Non-profit is not synonymous with good, and for-profit is not synonymous with exploitation.

This inequality needs to be addressed now.

They distort the nature of the scientific enterprise, rewrite its history, and overlook many of its most important contributors.

Alfred Nobel didn’t foresee the current era of mega scientific collaboration.

Jenny Rohn: Restricting Nobel prizes to three individuals has always been problematic, and increasingly glosses over the contributions of everyday scientists.

While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.

There is an urgent need by research communities and public agencies to collaboratively reclaim the infrastructure around the academic knowledge production process.

This week’s Nobel winners will have drawn on teams, often multinational.

In 1991, an electronic system through which interested parties could access non-peer-reviewed physics papers was launched by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Bad research just doesn’t affect the people in the area around it, the people who might spend years trying to take a dodgy result and extend it.

Once again, the term "open" requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.

How and why we should get rid of author lists in scientific publications.

Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.

Research institutions should explicitly seek job candidates who can be frankly self-critical of their work, says Jeffrey Flier.

Scientists have few direct incentives to replicate other researchers’ work, including precious little funding to do replications. Can that change?

An introspective look at peer review, one we hope will be useful for future discussions on the topic.

The White House and its lackeys in certain federal agencies are censoring scientific inquiry that could inform the public and government policy.

PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.

With a national election this month, Germany proves that foresight and stability can power research.

Researchers seeking science funding can be big losers in the equality and diversity game.

Britain must seek to protect research funding for its universities when it leaves the European Union or risk losing its leading role in innovation.

Three rules for ensuring that A.I. systems don't run roughshod over humans.

What you should look for in an academic friend.

Wise and honourable assessors of grant applications must be allowed to use their discretion, says Sui Huang

Lab heads should let junior researchers take their projects with them when they start their own labs — it drives innovation and discovery, argues Ben A.