Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.

Publication bias, in which positive results are preferentially reported by authors and published by journals, can restrict the visibility of evidence against false claims and allow such claims to be canonized inappropriately as facts.

Gender-bias in peer reviewing might persist even when gender-equity is reached because both male and female editors operate with a same-gender preference whose characteristics differ by editor-gender.

Selection bias, also known as collider bias, likely explains the apparent protective effect of G6PD deficiency against cerebral falciparum malaria.

Decision-makers are able to intentionally control neural excitability to strategically bias sensory evidence accumulation towards the decision bound that maximizes reward within a given ecological context.

A mathematical model of bias in marker-gene and metagenomic sequencing measurements explains systematic errors in defined mixtures of microbial species, and enables quantitative and reproducible investigation of biological communities.

Scientists should be aware of the non-empirical assumptions that influence all kinds of research.

A text-mining study suggests that about half of the papers reporting the results of experiments on mice do not report the sex and age of the mice.

Funnel plots of the Standardized Mean Difference versus the standard error are prone to distortion, leading to false-positive tests for funnel plot asymmetry, and therefore using the Normalised Mean Difference, or a sample size-based precision estimate, are more reliable alternatives.

Meta-analysis takes down a textbook example in behavioural and evolutionary ecology, and demonstrates the existence of biases in the current scientific publishing culture.