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.

Historical analysis of nearly half-a-million articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine since their inception frames the shifting scientific, material, ethical, and epistemic underpinnings of medicine over time, including today.

Those quoted and mentioned in stories in Nature News mostly have names associated with men and are much less likely to have names associated with East Asia.

Almost a quarter of faculty evaluation documents from US and Canadian universities mention Journal Impact Factor and often imply that it measures research quality.

The availability of almost all articles from toll access journals in the Sci-Hub repository will disrupt scholarly publishing towards more open models.

An analysis of more than 3000 randomized controlled trials published in JAMA, the Lancet and NEJM has identified 396 medical reversals.

Early-career researchers can learn about peer review by discussing preprints at journal clubs and sending feedback to the authors.

Early career researchers commonly peer review manuscripts on behalf of invited reviewers, often without receiving feedback or being named to the journal.

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.