The time has come for the life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and scientific community.

This study uses a bibliometric method to examine the relationship between two journal characteristics during 2009–2013: the article processing charges and the percentage of published articles based on work that is supported by grant-funded articles.

Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes.

Better communication between labs may resolve many reproducibility problems, according to [28]report.

Report concludes that the UK government must simplify the “excessively complex” schemes designed to assist collaboration between industry and universities.

Citations, while useful, miss many important kinds of impacts, and that the increasing scholarly use of online tools like Mendeley, Twitter, and blogs may allow us to measure hidden impacts.

The way scientific information diffuses through the knowledge economy is changing, and the first evidence from Wikipedia shows how.

Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

Five reviewers per application represents a practical optimum which avoids large random effects evident when fewer reviewers are used.

The flourishing of citizen science is an exciting phenomenon with the potential to contribute significantly to scientific progress. However, we lack a framework for addressing in a principled and effective manner the pressing ethical questions it raises. We argue that at the core of any such framework must be the human right to science.

This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.

"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues.

The importance of Institutional APIs

Who has the most retractions? Here's the Retraction Watch list.

Of top 200 institutions in the world, only one in seven has a female leader, research shows.

16.4% of Swiss publications were in the world’s top 10% between 2007 to 2009.

Scientific papers typically have a finite lifetime. Previous studies pointed out the existence of a few blatant exceptions: papers whose relevance has not been recognized for decades, but then suddenly become highly influential and cited. This study investigates how common Sleeping Beauties are in science.

The report seeks to provide a comprehensive national framework for good research conduct and its governance.

The paper proposes how to achieve widespread, uniform human and machine accessibility of deposited data, in support of significantly improved verification, validation, reproducibility and re-use of scholarly/scientific data.

The aim is to specify a standard by which we can say that a scientific study has been conducted in accordance with open-science principles and provide visual icons to allow advertising of such good behaviours.

Our aim is to deliver science talks in a fun, engaging and approachable way by bringing them to a pub close to you. We will bring you the most interesting and knowledgeable scientists around to give a talk about their research.

Featuring Professor Eric Lander, the human genome pioneer and science advisor to the US President.

The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects.

Studying researchers’ CVs shows that moving jobs does not always boost a researcher’s productivity.

This editorial describes the problems with the process of preparing and publishing research findings, and with judging their veracity and significance, and then explains how we at Faculty of 1000 are starting to tackle the ‘deadly sins’ of science publishing.

Scientists receive much advice on how to write an effective paper that their colleagues will read, cite, and celebrate. Here we put this advice to the test, and measure the impact of certain features of academic writing on success, as proxied by citations.

Understanding emerging areas of a multidisciplinary research field is crucial for researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. For them a knowledge structure based on longitudinal bibliographic data can be an effective instrument.

[24]This report presents the key findings, the main areas of discussion and the policy recommendations emerging from the consultation.

Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm.

This collection brings together agenda-setting essays by policymakers, practitioners, scientists and scholars from across Europe.