Establishing a community of 'rigor champions' and building a comprehensive educational platform to teach the principles of rigorous science will help to ensure that the outputs of scientific research remain reliable and robust.

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

When making decisions about funding and jobs the scientific community should recognise that most of the tools used to evaluate scientific excellence are biased in favour of established disciplines and against interdisciplinary research.

It is time for the research community to rethink how the outputs of scientific research are evaluated and, as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment makes clear, this should involve replacing the journal impact factor with a broad range of more meaningful approaches.

Recent advances in technology now make it possible to carry out biomedical research on animals living in the wild, or captive animals living in naturalistic conditions.

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.

Science hackathons can help academics, particularly those in the early stage of their careers, to build collaborations and write research proposals.

A EASAC working group on gain-of-function research has emphasised the importance of ensuring that the necessary safeguards and policies are in place.

The DORA initiative offers practical guidance on improving the assessment of research by universities, research institutions, and funders.

The ASAP initiative will incentivize collaboration between researchers and encourage open-science practices to improve our understanding of the biology underlying Parkinson's disease.