As we await the announcement of the 2019 Nobel Prize winners, it’s time to question why female scientists still lag behind their male colleagues.

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

The standard system of separating figures, tables, and legends from the text is unnecessary and laborious.

It is a violation of publishing ethics to use the peer review comments of one journal to mature a manuscript and submit to another with a higher impact factor.

A memo distributed to employees of the US Department of Agriculture requires them to include a disclaimer that their peer-reviewed work doesn’t represent agency findings or policy.

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.