publishing

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

The Scientist is embarking on a new publishing journey, and you, dear reader, are invited to join.

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.

Many scientists have turned to preprints to rapidly disseminate their research on COVID-19, but some disagree with this approach.

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

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.

Collecting data on the various races, sexual orientations, and gender identities of editors at 25 scientific and medical journals, researchers document the underrepresentation of minority groups.

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.

Malcolm Macleod, who helped develop these best practices, tells The Scientist how the new guidelines for manuscript publishing seek to support a push for transparent and thorough sharing of methods and data.

Avoiding inbreeding appears to be the exception rather than the norm for animals, according to a new meta-analysis of experimental studies.

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.

At a time of fast-paced science and rampant misinformation, can we trust the non–peer-reviewed literature?

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

ASAPbio has developed resources for preprint servers, institutions, scientists, and journalists to promote the responsible reporting of research in the media.

The agreement comes two years after the university system cut ties with the publisher after failing to come to an agreement.

Investigators from underrepresented groups have borne the brunt of the disruption to science from the pandemic, according to an opinion piece that outlines ways in which institutions can lessen the damage.