Emerging technologies making computational reproducibility practical in both time and effort.

Get the latest stats on women in leadership and learn how companies can create more inclusive workplaces in the 2017 Women in the Workplace study.

This report explores the role of women in STEM and the challenges they face, looking at areas of gender inequality, exploring potential causes of this inequality and offering solutions.

The Royal Society's statement on research integrity sets out key principles and behaviours of an ethical nature for the Fellowship and all those that receive grants from the Society.

Asking scientists to attempt to create new paradigms or fields in every proposal is unrealistic and potentially harmful.

This article provides a quantitative analysis of peer review as an emerging field of research by revealing patterns and connections between authors, fields and journals from 1950 to 2016.

A systematic review

A paper evaluating the possibility of using Google Scholar (GS) institutional level data to evaluate university research in a relatively automatic way.

An analysis of researchers' global mobility reveals that limiting the circulation of scholars will damage the scientific system, say Cassidy R.

Publishing means different things to different communities and individual approaches to OA are representative of this fact.

Understanding the potential effects of requiring that grantees publish their peer-reviewed research in open access journals.

Applying to all the parts of a paper and further to other forms of communication such as grants and posters.

A bibliometric analysis of citers.

How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

The academic social network site ResearchGate (RG) has its own indicator, RG Score, for its members. The high profile nature of the site means that the RG Score may be used for recruitment, promotion

Contrary to the basic premise of many funding policies, we find that the number of citations of an investigator determine funding levels, but not the other way around.

This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers.

An analysis of potential predatory journals as well as potential poor scientific standards journals.

As journals move away from print formats and embrace web-based content, design-centered thinking will allow for engagement of a larger audience.

The paper addresses the concepts and practices of “open notebook science” as an innovation within the contemporary Open Science movement.

A paper showing that science and engineering PhD students lose interest in an academic career over the course of graduate training.

A survey of 190 postdocs in North America reveals a surprisingly unhappy postdoc community with low satisfaction with life scores.

A number of authors interested in how to translate evidence into policy identify the importance of policy narrative and argue that advocates of scientific evidence need to tell good stories to grab the attention and appeal to the emotions of policymakers.

Trust that reviewers will treat manuscripts received for peer review as confidential communications is an essential tenet of peer review. New results suggest that breaches of this trust do occur.

A paper arguing that researchers could, on average, maintain current PhD student and Postdoc employment levels, and still have at their disposal a moderate to considerable budget for travel and equipment, depeding on the country.

Instead of making scientists compete for grants based on project proposals, research funding could simply be divided equally among all ‘qualified’ researchers, according to a new paper.

More than 26 percent of papers identified as systematic reviews or meta-analyses contained spin. This figure rose to up to 84 percent in papers reporting on nonrandomised trials.

73% of ERC projects evaluated have made breakthroughs or major scientific advances.

Scientific abstracts have become less readable over the past 130 years, in part because recent texts include more general scientific jargon than older texts.

Do lay people and scientists themselves recognize that scientists are human and therefore prone to human fallibilities such as error, bias, and even dishonesty?