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

Seventeen studies coauthored by Gregg Semenza have been retracted, corrected, or raised for concern, and 15 more are currently under investigation.

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

The Scientist interviewed clinical pharmacologist Clara Locher, coauthor of a new survey aimed at detecting editorial bias, regarding her team’s findings about biomedical publishing.

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.

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

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.

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 issue’s guest editors resign after falling out with the publisher over the management of papers, including a rejected manuscript on ivermectin, that were submitted for a special issue on drug repurposing for COVID-19.

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

The journal Ethology is the first to adopt the guidelines, aimed at clarifying experimental design and the potential biases within.

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

The agreement will enable authors at eligible German institutes to publish an estimated 400 open-access papers each year in Springer Nature journals from the Nature line of titles.

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

The scholarly publisher has announced several new licensing agreements in both Europe and the US—but some major academic groups are still without contracts and access to journals.

Half of early-career researchers say they’d participated in the peer review process with their mentors without getting credit.

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

The university and the publisher have been trying to forge a new licensing agreement for the last year.

Scientists are working to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of sharing.