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

At least 5,000 of the country’s researchers have published their work on questionable platforms, often forking over exorbitant fees, a report finds.

Peer review varies in quality and thoroughness. Making it publicly available could improve it.

The venue for post-publication peer review was not getting enough participation.

From efforts to increase the transparency of the review process to initiatives offering training, there are many attempts underway to make better reviewers out of researchers.

Two manuscripts published without methods point to the importance of community policing on preprint archives.

The Chinese government finds almost 500 researchers guilty of misconduct in relation to a recent spate of retractions from a cancer journal.

New features include increased security of user anonymity.

We suggest a centralized facility for submitting to journals—one that would benefit scientists and not only publishers.