Obviously peer review should not be abandoned entirely, but it is time to recognise the need for a separate category of highly innovative research with appropriate funding.

Economists show increased research efforts are yielding decreasing returns. Too much innovation veneration! One driver of the replication crisis is our culture’s growing obsession with “innovation.” As technology historians Lee Vinsel and Andrew Russell state in their influential Aeon essay Hail the Maintainers: “Entire societies have come to talk about innovation as if it were an inherently desirable value."

Efforts to engage life science companies in open innovation have been hampered by the industry’s continued reticence to share. The result is shrinking pipelines, a wave of drug patent expirations ending in sudden drops in revenue, and poorly served public health.

Even lobbyists admit that’s the plan behind the extra EU copyright for news.

High-risk, high-reward ideas in areas such as AI, blockchain and synthetic biology are typical contenders for support from the EU’s new Innovation Council.

The independent High-Level Group of Innovators recommends bringing all relevant EU funding schemes into a single, fit-for-purpose 'one-stop-shop' for innovation financing.

A new system must build cross-sector collaboration, lower barriers to working together, and create excitement and tangible know-how to attract investment.

How do evolving forms of digital scholarship fit into the current landscape and what are the implications for publishers?

Thomas Insel's biggest lesson from his shift from NIMH director to Silicon Valley entrepreneur: academic and technology company researchers should partner up.

Young firms struggle to compete as deep-pocketed companies like Facebook and Amazon clone products and consolidate their power.