The story of La Paillasse: an open lab which aims to cut out the intermediaries and create a much more open way of doing research, enabling to fast-prototype solutions to scientific problems.

The knowledge that we produce in our publicly funded works belongs to humankind and must not be locked up behind pay-walls— newly submitted papers should be open-access and older ones open-archive.

<p>The way we rank individuals and institutions simply does not work, argues Yves Gingras.</p>

How should the scientific publication process be rethought to be more meritocratic?

Citizen science has the potential to make science and innovation more responsible, but it is not without controversy.

A modern digital state needs an effective data infrastructure.

There are big advantages to having scientists communicate in a common tongue, but there are drawbacks as well

An unbending reward system prevents early-career researchers taking full advantage of the digital world.

When we pay for federally funded research, we should be allowed to read it. That’s the simple premise of FASTR, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act.

The U.S. depends on international collaborations and immigrants to solve domestic and global problems.

Following the UK’s vote to leave the EU, arrangements for the movement of people to and from the UK look likely to change.  Will scientists be affected?

Funders and publishers have something in common: for better or worse, we have the ability to influence the behavior of researchers.

Upheaval in the former superpower is bad for research and the wider world.

A vibrant scientific culture encourages many interpretations of evidence.

Government support for startups is underrated, says Mariana Mazzucato.

An MP’s dismissive tweet that scientists have ‘no experience of the real world’ highlights a chasm in mutual understanding.

Jim Smith is a Professor of Developmental Biology at the Francis Crick Institute.

When I first heard that Bob Dylan had won the Nobel Prize in Literature, I was immediately jealous of the scientists who had won this year.

UK's universities will be the poorer for insistence on immigration controls.

Peer review publications remain a key stage in the quality assurance of new research, but some comments can be the stuff of nightmares.

Research used to be about the pursuit of knowledge, now it’s driven by impact and returns. The only way to survive is to change how we work

Interview with Rusty Speidel, Marketing Director at the Center for Open Science (COS).

Speech by Commissioner Moedas@ Frontier Research and Science Diplomacy

Demand for steady output stymies discovery. To pursue the most important research, scientists must be allowed to shift their focus.

Scientific quality is hard to define, and numbers are easy to look at. But bibliometrics are warping science — encouraging quantity over quality.

How much further could the public university be disrupted?

What Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner taught me about being scooped, by Bob Goldstein

Lynn Kamerlin makes a point of supporting her trainees' career aspirations, whatever they may be

These days, a scientist has to publish a steady stream of research articles to be “successful.” But two new studies argue that that kind of pressure promotes sloppy science at the expense of careful work.

Social scientists investigate when and why liberals and conservatives mistrust science. The apparent split may be more about cultural and personal beliefs than feelings about science itself.