science publishing, publishing

Take a break from the bench to puzzle and peruse

All members of the scientific community must commit to taking the risks needed to change how research is shared and evaluated.

The journal’s executive director speaks with The Scientist about what it hopes to accomplish with its unusual new publishing model.

Despite increasingly strict journal policies requiring the release of computational code files along with research papers, many scientists remain reluctant to share—underscoring the need for better solutions.

The academic networking service ResearchGate was infringing on copyrights held by scientific publishers when it hosted manuscripts from their journals, the European court said, but the website will not have to pay damages.

Authors of papers published in JAMA and NEJM received millions in undisclosed payments in 2017, an analysis finds.

Preprints can be valuable additions to the scientific literature. But we must start seeing them as perishable commodities rather than akin to peer-reviewed, published studies.

An analysis finds that reviewers are more likely to choose to be de-anonymized when their reviews are positive, suggesting instituting a fully open process might discourage negative feedback.

Many scientists have turned to preprints to rapidly disseminate their research on COVID-19, but some disagree with this approach.

Finding and reporting an irregularity in a published study can lead people down an unexpected path.

Collecting data on the various races, sexual orientations, and gender identities of editors at 25 scientific and medical journals, researchers document the underrepresentation of minority groups.

Zhangfeng Hu will be unable to submit manuscripts for three years after having violated the journal’s policy about making study materials available to other scientists.

Malcolm Macleod, who helped develop these best practices, tells The Scientist how the new guidelines for manuscript publishing seek to support a push for transparent and thorough sharing of methods and data.

A response to Ada Hagan’s opinion piece suggesting that our study “compromises response to gender bias.”

A recent analysis that claimed no evidence of gender-based peer review outcomes fails to account for several factors.

Scientists from countries with fewer resources are pushing collaborators from higher-income countries to shed biases and behaviors that perpetuate social stratification in the research community.

Then there are the counterfeiters.

Meet some of the people featured in the December 2020 issue of The Scientist.

While some academics have called for compensation for assessing other scientists’ work, publishers haven’t warmed to the idea.