science publishing

Open science serves to make the research process more transparent. But we are still waiting to realize the fruits of open-data policies at scientific journals.

Take a break from the bench to puzzle and peruse

All members of the scientific community must commit to taking the risks needed to change how research is shared and evaluated.

The journal’s executive director speaks with The Scientist about what it hopes to accomplish with its unusual new publishing model.

Scientific publishers get involved in a scandal at Temple University that has so far produced one retraction for image manipulation, a university-led investigation, and a lawsuit by one of the researchers involved.

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.

The Biden administration will by 2026 require that all publicly funded work be deposited in designated repositories immediately on publication.

As we continue to transition out of the print era of scientific publishing, funders and institutions are paying a steep price to have trustworthy publishers certify research outcomes.

The academic networking service ResearchGate was infringing on copyrights held by scientific publishers when it hosted manuscripts from their journals, the European court said, but the website will not have to pay damages.

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

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.

His career bridged impactful research in molecular biology and biochemistry with prolific science writing for academic and nonacademic audiences alike.

The Scientist interviewed clinical pharmacologist Clara Locher, coauthor of a new survey aimed at detecting editorial bias, regarding her team’s findings about biomedical publishing.

In response to two November 2021 articles in The Scientist that called out preprints as a source of medical misinformation, the cofounders of bioRxiv and medRxiv say it’s not the publishing model that’s at fault.

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.

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.