Scientists see great value in catchy acronyms, so they get creative when it comes to naming new tools and techniques.

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.

Last month, 10 UK universities became part of the UK Reproducibility Network, joining researchers, funders, journal publishers, and regulatory agencies.

Publishers’ efforts to reduce “leakage,” funder-driven open-access schemes, the growth of academic publishing in China, and more.

Licensing negotiations between libraries and publishers continued, a radical open-access plan made changes, and the flaws of some publishing tools and techniques came to light.

The Scientist’s reporters tracked the development of CAR T cell therapies, explored the Neanderthal DNA in our genomes, and dove into a CRISPR controversy.

Male researchers are more likely to describe their work in publications using positive superlatives than their female colleagues are, a habit tied to more citations.

A journal is forced to remove a record-breaking number of papers—and all in one go.

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.