A report showing that Swiss participation has recovered since 2016, but is weaker overall than in the previous programme generation (2007–2013).

The h-index has gained wide acceptance as a bibliometric indicator of individual scientific achievement. In this paper, J. E. Hirsch proposes an alternative to replacing the h-index with a better index, the h-alpha-index, to address at least some of its deficiencies.

A paper that examines the relationship between placement of publications in Top Five journals and receipt of tenure in academic economics departments.

Manuscript showing how Augmented Reality, which is the projection of virtual information onto a real-world object, can be applied in the classroom and in the laboratory. 

A large-scale analysis of the state of open access pulising across various countries from 1990 to 2016.

The implications of a simultaneous redirection of the big publishers' business strategy towards open access business models and the acquisition of scholarly infrastructure utilizing the conceptual framework of rent-seeking theory.

A factsheet summarising why the UK leaving the EU with no-deal is a bad deal for science, and outlining what a deal for science should look like.

The new version of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity will be published today.

Study finds that compliance with the European Commission requirement for all trials to post results on to the EUCTR within 12 months of completion has been poor, with half of all trials non-compliant.

The "mothers work less" hypothesis supported for German but not for U.S. early career researchers.

Most academic staff working on contract at Canadian universities and colleges aren’t employed that way by choice indicates new survey results.

Study concludes that relationships with faculty, particularly the mentor advisor, are essential to the opportunities available to these young career researchers and to the career paths they choose.

The Global State of Peer Review is one of the largest ever studies into the practice of scholarly peer review around the world focusing on four questions: 1. Who is doing the review? 2. How efficient is the peer review process? 3. What do we know about peer review quality? 4. What does the future hold?

The acceptance rate for eLife manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.

Using comprehensive new data on prizes and prizewinners worldwide and across disciplines, this study examines the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network.

This publication provides an overview of some practical tools and strategies that researchers can implement in their own workflow to increase replicability and the overall quality of psychology research.

Many efforts are underway to promote data sharing in psychology, however it is currently unclear if the in-principle benefits of data availability are being realized in practice. In a recent study, we found that a mandatory open data policy introduced at the journal Cognition led to a substantial increase in available data, but a considerable portion of this data was not reusable. For data to be reusable, it needs to be clearly structured and well-documented. Open data alone will not be enough to achieve the benefits envisioned by proponents of data sharing.

Study attempts to reproduce values reported in 35 articles published in the journal Cognition revealed analysis pipelines peppered with errors. Elements of a reproducible workflow that may help to mitigate these problems in future research are outlined.

Preprint showing evidence of a steady increase in reciprocity over the years despite a negative correlation between obtaining citations through reciprocity and long-term career success.

To keep authorship fair, journals in all fields should list authors based on their contribution rather than in alphabetical order.

Preprint suggests that in all areas Google Scholar citation data is essentially a superset of Web of Science and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.

Based on 17 studies, this literature review critically assesses the literature on doctoral student well-being.

We asked federal scientists what it's like to work in the Trump administration. Their answers point to widespread, serious problems that should concern all of us.

We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community.

A set of complementary guides covering the main aspects of depositing software into digital repositories.

"Science, research and innovation performance of the EU, 2018" (SRIP) analyses Europe’s performance dynamics in science, research and innovation and its drivers, in a global context.

What does the Trump administration's assault on federal science look like to the people who experience it every day in their workplaces?

Citizen science: crowdsourcing for systematic reviews looks at how people can contribute their expertise to scientific studies using new online platforms - even if they don’t think of themselves as researchers or scientists.

A novel set of text- and citation-based metrics that can be used to identify high-impact and transformative works. The 11 metrics can be grouped into seven types: Radical-Generative, Radical-Destructive, Risky, Multidisciplinary, Wide Impact, Growing Impact, and Impact (overall).

Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.