Google Scholar presents a broader view of the academic world because it has brought to light a great number of sources that were not previously visible.

Economist and adviser Mariana Mazzucato says the European Commission should 'welcome risk and uncertainty' with new research missions, but the desired outcome must be clear.

Tolerating bad behavior means wasted tax dollars, disrupted scientific advancements and weakened innovation.

After being given the green light by research ministers earlier this year, an ambitious initiative to enable Europe’s 1.7 million researchers to share data and research tools is now on course to be launched before the end of the year. But what should the next steps be?

Early-career researchers can learn about peer review by discussing preprints at journal clubs and sending feedback to the authors.

Publishing exclusively in English can cause the deterioration of a culture’s local knowledge, brain drain, and hinder the emergence of important research. There are scholarly journals from the Global South who won’t flip to open access because they know they will be immediately labelled as predatory. Fixing these problems will require reconsidering how we talk about predatory publishers, no longer recommending blacklists, and using databases beyond Scopus and Web of Science.

An extensive, non-exhaustive list of current proposals aimed at aligning assessments of scientists with desirable scientific behaviours.

And the key to its popularity is the online repository and social network, GitHub.

As the president prepares for nuclear talks, he lacks a close adviser with nuclear expertise. It’s one example of a marginalization of science in shaping federal policy.

New research predicts that audits would reduce the number of false positive results from 30.2 per 100 papers to 12.3 per 100.

Scare stories in the media warn that biohackers in community labs are working underground to create the next global apocalypse. In truth, these labs are all about science outreach and education.

Wrong question; instead of scapegoating individual researchers, we should blame the centers of power, including corporations and political leaders.

The assumption that the publication of an article in a high-impact factor, indexed journal somehow adds value to international science is a collective illusion - one that is unfortunately shared by funding agencies, institutions and researchers. This illusion - which serves as an excuse to delegate the evaluation of science to for-profit companies and anonymous reviewers for the sake of false objectivity - costs taxpayers dearly.

Given the dearth of women receiving the top science prizes, it's time for the Nobel Committee to revamp how it awards great work.

By tying rewards to metrics, organisations risk incentivising gaming and encouraging behaviours that may be at odds with their larger purpose. The culture of short-termism engendered by metrics also impedes innovation and stifles the entrepreneurial element of human nature.

Most papers fail to report many aspects of the experiment and analysis that we may not with advantage omit - things that are crucial to understanding the result and its limitations and to repeating the work.  Instead of arguing about whether results hold up, we should strive to provide enough information for others to repeat the experiments.

If the publishers of scientific journals everywhere enforced a universal code of ethics - if you violate the code, you cannot publish your scientific work - systematic bullies and harassers would be eliminated from their fields.

Despite the negative connotations they incite, they have exactly the kind of insight and persistence that higher ed needs today, argue M. Soledad Caballero and Aimee Knupsky.

Objections to the Creative Commons attribution licence are straw men raised by parties who want open access to be as closed as possible, warns John Wilbanks.

When it’s also big science, the careers of those involved can suffer.

Whatever we call it, investment in research will lead the way to important short- and long-term discoveries.

Many biologists are still reluctant to submit preprints, in part out of concern that doing so will allow others to “scoop” their work and undermine their chances of publication in a prestigious journal. I would like to rebut that concern, among others, and to share our research group’s first experience submitting a preprint manuscript.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewers, the scientists who scrutinize the latest studies, aren't paid for their labor. This is completely ridiculous. Peer review may be the most important part of the scientific enterprise, and it is not incentivized monetarily.

It takes an average of 15 clicks for a researcher to find and access a journal article. This time could be much better spent

In this era of billionaires and unequal funding, where is research going? And perhaps more importantly, how will our changing resources affect the training, success, and diversity of the scientists of our future?

Just as the peer review system of journal publication is itself an ever-evolving construction, so too are the unspoken rules that govern which scientists share what. 

Simply adding an ‘open access’ option to the existing prestige-based journal system at ever increasing costs is not the fundamental change publishing needs, says Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman 

Transparency is especially important because science appears to be facing a major credibility crisis right now. The high percentage of bronze OA means that many papers are vulnerable to being re-enclosed. Librarians have failed to make institutional repositories either interesting or useful. The rise of pay-to-publish gold OA is a real problem, especially for less wealthy countries.

Lack of transparency and unconscious biases make it hard to spot inequality.  Scientists pride themselves on objectivity, and may, therefore, be slow to see how unconscious biases alter their judgment and actions.

Balancing due process with the academic community's right to know is no easy task, but critics say more could be done to weed out bad actors.  Many universities halt investigations after an accused scientist departs, leaving future employers blind to the researcher’s history of allegations.