There have been two distinct responses to the replication crisis – by instituting measures like registered reports and by making data openly available. But another group continues to remain in denial.

The goal is to customize treatments for cancer and other diseases to a patient's own biology. But something as simple as failing to take care of tissue samples en route to the lab can derail that.

Leonard Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute, discusses the causes of irreproducible science and his latest effort to spread best practices.

The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made "sound."

Creating a culture of replication takes prizes, grants and magnanimity — as well as publications.

Science could benefit from more reporting of null findings, even if the reports were briefer and had less detail than would be needed for peer review.

It sounds almost absurd, but that could be one factor behind the so-called “reproducibility crisis”.

Far from being duped, researchers with few resources are turning to "predatory" journals to publish articles and polish resumes.

When a scientific paper is retracted, it can produce long-term aftershocks.

Bad research just doesn’t affect the people in the area around it, the people who might spend years trying to take a dodgy result and extend it.

The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.

To conserve Earth's remarkable species, we must also defend the importance of science and scientific integrity.