By day, "Olivia Doll" sits on the boards of seven academic journals; by night, she's a Staffordshire terrier named Ollie, owned by Mike Daube, a public health expert in Perth, Australia.

As researchers, we are unlikely to spend much time reflecting on one of the often-forgotten pillars of science: scientific publishing. Naturally, our focus leans more towards traditional academic activities including teaching, mentoring graduate students and post docs, and the next exciting experiment that will allow us to advance our understanding.

Because knowing where to look is half the battle.

For all the wonderful things academic societies do, they tend to be incredibly conservative and have done very little to suggest that they can lead on publishing innovation.

Does press coverage ever lead to papers’ rejection?

This week, we received a press release that caught our attention: A company is releasing software it claims will write manuscripts using researchers’ data. 

Digital Science continued independence is the best way to have the biggest impact in supporting research, researchers, publishers, funders and research institutions around the world.

Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal.

Paul Shannon, Head of Technology, looks at the costs of running eLife’s own continuous publication platform four months after the launch of eLife 2.0.

Elizabeth Gadd takes a look at the contradictions between scholarly culture and copyright culture, and the cognitive dissonance created.

Sure, it’s happened to all of us — the invitation to be keynote speaker at a conference you’ve never heard of or an invitation to sit on an editorial board for a journal with a name you don’t recognize.