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.

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.

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.

Take a break from the bench to puzzle and peruse.

A response to Ada Hagan’s opinion piece suggesting that our study “compromises response to gender bias.”