Statisticians react to the news.

This blog calls for a better scientific quality by pointing to the shortcomings in academia.

We do not have to live in a constant state of fear that our health is being put at-risk. We can restore and strengthen science-based decision-making processes that are protected from political interference. Today, we are releasing our first set of recommendations providing a roadmap for how the fede

What if libraries agreed to continue paying the subscription fees to journals that they were already subscribing to, only the journals flipped to open access?

We should be nurturing the kinds of publishing cultures we want to see: those that value the labour needed to care for publishing and that work in harmony with research communities rather than extract from them, argues Samuel Moore.

The deal, which is expected to close in early 2020, further cements Ex Libris as the leader in the library systems marketplace and can be expected to put added pressure on OCLC.

Andy Stirling describes a new project aiming to help science and innovation serve global goals.

Every five minutes or so, someone tries to come up with a cost-per-article figure for academic publishing. Martin Paul Eve explains why he finds himself wanting to resist the temptation.

Many researchers still see the journal impact factor (JIF) as a key metric for promotions and tenure, despite concerns that it’s a flawed measure of a researcher’s value.

i recently applied for the editor in chief position at Psychological Science. i didn't get it, but i got far enough to be asked to write a vision statement, responding to eight prompts.

This week saw a sober assessment of the impact - both positive but also depressingly negative - of schemes to improve gender equality.

Interactive and reproducible repositories powered by Zenodo and Binder.

A couple of years ago, psychologist Susan Fiske launched a broadside against science bloggers - since taken offline - packed with name-calling.

Almost every academic article starts with a literature review. However, although these short research summaries can be beneficial they also introduce opportunities for unverifiable misrepresentation and self-aggrandizement.

There are a couple of angles to look at researcher conflict of interest from. One is that a conflict could distort their work, tilting findings and claims away from "the truth". The other is for the way the work is received, not how it is done: authors' perceived conflicts could damage credibility. How does this translate to authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses? Are the issues the same, no matter the type of study? I've been thinking about that a lot lately. I was one of the external stakeholders consulted as part of the Cochrane Collaboration's review of its conflict of interest policy for their systematic reviews editorial teams. As they explain, they are looking to strengthen their approach to financial conflicts, and "consider a wider range of possible inherent biases". In biomedicine at least, systematic reviewers/meta-analysts are widely seen as arbiters on the state of knowledge. Their work often guides individual decisions, policy, and funding. I think that

Open Access mega-journals have in some academic disciplines become a key channel for communicating research. In others, however, they remain unknown. This article explores how authors’ perceptions of mega-journals differ across disciplines and are shaped by motivations associated with the multiple communities they function within.