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.

Denmark’s Novo Nordisk Foundation says it hopes that adding a randomization step to its award process will reduce implicit biases in selection and lead to funding more innovative, impactful research.

Researchers involved in an eight-year project to reproduce the findings of more than 50 high-impact papers struggled to get enough information to even carry out most of the experiments.

Preprints are likely here to stay. The press, the public, and the research community must adapt to this relatively recent model of scientific publishing if we are to extract its benefits while avoiding its pitfalls.

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.

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.

A review article containing contested claims about the tropical medicine drug as a COVID-19 treatment was listed as “provisionally accepted” on the journal’s website before being removed this week.

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.

The study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has attracted widespread derision from researchers.

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

The changes, which affect the declarations authors have to sign and the peer-review process, have received a mixed response from the scientific community.

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

Preprints from the first round of seroprevalence studies indicate that many more people have been infected with the virus than previously reported. Some of these studies also have serious design flaws.

Coronavirus experts are swamped with reading submissions, which they’re working through as quickly as possible.

Constructively critiquing the scientific literature should be an essential part of the postdoctoral experience, and early career researchers have shown that they are up to the task.

Training young scientists to review submitted manuscripts should be an academic exercise, not a facet of professional scientific publishing.