Jump to navigation
Enter the article’s url One of our curators will take care of it as soon as possible!
From a self-sampling scientist to the downfall of a leading stem cell scientist, here's our naughty list.
Alzheimer’s disease will receive 2.3 billion USD, the biggest chunk of change devoted to one of the NIH’s various interests.
Despite some difficult negotiations, academic institutions in the Netherlands have been securing subscriptions that combine publishing and reading into one fee.
From efforts to increase the transparency of the review process to initiatives offering training, there are many attempts underway to make better reviewers out of researchers.
The federal budget, expected before the end of March, may substantially raise funding for research.
The use of outdated computational tools is a major offender in science’s reproducibility crisis-and there’s growing momentum to avoid it.
To correct gender disparities in academia, the Max Planck Society and the Australian government are taking the uncommonly direct approach of affirmative action.
In a gender discrimination lawsuit against the Salk Institute, a female scientist alleges that biologist Inder Verma was dismissive of his female colleagues.
In 2017, scientists, regulators, and publishers clashed in a series of lawsuits, boycotts, mass resignations, and more.
The Good Pharma Scorecard finds some big pharmaceutical companies are meeting legal standards for disclosing results—but many studies still go unreported.
Leonard Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute, discusses the causes of irreproducible science and his latest effort to spread best practices.
An analysis of a collection of open-access datasets quantifies their benefit to the scientific community.
Nature Plants explains how it handled a manuscript coauthored by Patrice Dunoyer, a biologist with multiple retractions to his name.
Nearly 1,000 signatories are asking the National Institutes of Health to reinstitute the Grant Support Index proposal.
The Chinese government finds almost 500 researchers guilty of misconduct in relation to a recent spate of retractions from a cancer journal.
Experts debate how best to point researchers to reputable publishers and steer them away from predatory ones.
Computational scientists develop a system for spotting data overdue for public release, and end up getting hundreds of open-access datasets corrected.
We suggest a centralized facility for submitting to journals—one that would benefit scientists and not only publishers.
When firing Allen Braun, the NIDCD also barred his colleagues from publishing data collected over a 25-year period.
As the NIH questions the place of preprints in grant applications, the U.K.’s MRC encourages scientists to submit non-peer-reviewed works for consideration.
Three UK neuroscientists jointly win the €1 million European Brain Prize for their work on memory.
Panelists and attendees at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting considered the future of peer review and journal impact factors.