Researchers are “choosing their lottery numbers after seeing the draw”, making medicine less reliable - and respected journals are letting them do it.

Report to the Swiss Science and Innovation Council SSIC.

A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors.

A shortlist of recommendations to promote gender equality in science and stimulate future efforts to level the field.

Highly Cited Researchers in 2015 according to Thomson Reuters.

Replication studies are rare and only a few had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis.

Scientists perform a tiny subset of all possible experiments. What characterizes the experiments they choose? And what are the consequences of those choices for the pace of scientific discovery?

Assessing diversity for a sustainable research base.

Report examining employment and earnings outcomes for Ph.D. recipients.

Analyzing three decades' worth of PubMed-indexed abstracts, scientists find a notable increase in the frequency of positive words, like "innovative" and "novel", over time.

Study examining whether NIH funded articles that were archived in PMC after the release of the 2008 NIH Public Access Policy show greater scholarly impact than comparable articles not archived in PMC.

Grantsmanship and service activities appeared as the most critical factors associated with faculty burnout.

Biology top journals share original data at the highest rate, and physics top journals share at the lowest rate.

Study presenting evidence for the existence of a citation advantage within astrophysics for papers that link to data.

The distribution of p-values in reported medical abstracts provides evidence for systematic error in the reporting of p-values..

An analysis of the essential tension identifies institutional forces that sustain tradition and suggestions of policy interventions to foster innovation.

A paper proposing an index (namely, the L-index) that does not depend on the number of publications, accounts for different co-author contributions and age of publications, and scales from 0.0 to 9.9.

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose.

Results from a national survey of US scientists.

An empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes.

Whether and how gender affects the selection of reviewers.

The small but focused snapshot of research afforded by the Nature Index helps fine-tune analysis of global scientific collaboration.

85% of German scientists use Wikipedia (30% at least daily), 5% contribute to it. (In German.)

Though there are currently no mechanisms in place to quickly identify findings that are unlikely to replicate, this paper shows that prediction markets are well suited to bridge this gap.

An analysis of the education of researchers that constitute the main Brazilian research groups, using data on about 6,000 researchers.

A step forward in quantifying scientific impact?

Breuning et al. include some tips for avoiding reviewer fatigue:

An analysis of WoS data spanning more than 100 years reveals the rapid growth and increasing multidisciplinarity of physics, as well its internal map of subdisciplines.

White paper showing that the vast majority of authors believe that blind peer review helps to minimize discrimination.

On [22]the incidence and role of negative citations in science.