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.

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

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.

In studies of gender disparities in academia, increased focus is required on within-group variability and between-group overlap of distributions when interpreting and reporting results.

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.

Disclosing work prior to submission to a journal would benefit scientists seeking to be acknowledged for their discoveries.

An analysis of 67,885 preprints on bioRxiv finds evidence for disparities in international participation that are similar to the disparities found in conventional journals.