A survey of journals and editors in five areas of research - ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology - reveals a range of differences in their approach to peer review.

An analysis of more than 70,000 journal articles, including 5405 that were first released as a preprint on bioRxiv, shows that articles with a preprint received 49% more attention and 36% more citations than articles without one.

An easy-to-implement antibody validation pipeline addresses the reproducibility crisis resulting from the use of non-specific antibodies.

Strategies to improve public trust in biomedical research are being hindered by a scientific mindset that stifles interest in reform.

The views of peers are important when applying for a faculty position, but so are research plans and being a good 'fit'.

In the first study attempting to formally quantify the deleterious impact of research misconduct on funding sources and publication output, we found that misconduct accounts for a small but substantial portion of American biomedical science funding dollars and damages the productivity and rate of funding acquisition of those who commit misconduct.

An analysis of author contribution statements in a large number of published papers reveals biases in the career trajectories of scientists.