The Scientist spoke with University of California, San Francisco, neuroscientist Eleanor Palser about her study’s finding that women, especially those working outside the US, are underrepresented in some areas of academic publishing.

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

The plan’s signatories seek to make the results of their funded research available to all, but some scientists say the transition to open access has led to climbing publication fees and could exacerbate global disparities.

The editor-in-chief will step down this month following the release of a podcast in February that suggested systemic racism does not exist in medicine.

The move follows widespread criticism of the episode and its promotion, and the resignation of the podcast’s host.

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.

An analysis of data from nearly 150 journals across scientific disciplines finds that, if anything, manuscripts authored by women are treated more favorably than those submitted by men.

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

The open access publication will use AI to identify the most pressing manuscripts in need of peer review.

When submitting manuscripts to Western journals, authors face issues that go beyond language barriers.

Its articles will include negative results, reproducibility studies, and peer reviewers’ names.

The publisher failed to meet requests for better access to research, a consortium of Norwegian institutions says.

Roberto Bolli was editor of the American Heart Association’s journal until last week, after anti-gay comments he sent to the Louisville Ballet became public.

The three-year contract, in which all articles will be published as open access in exchange for an annual fee for journal subscriptions, is a triumph for Project DEAL.

The journal’s “portable peer review” seeks to save time for editors and researchers.

A funder-driven push for freely accessible scholarly literature has divided the scientific community.

As the American Chemical Society and Elsevier move litigation forward, other academic publishers have opted to collaborate with the academic network platform instead.

Research funding agencies in Europe will require grantees’ papers to be free to read when they are available online.