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.

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.

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.

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.

The RIPOSTE framework has been developed to support early and regular discussions between scientists and statisticians in order to improve the design, conduct and analysis of laboratory studies.

The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology will generate a high-quality dataset to explore questions about the reproducibility of research, and will make all data, analysis and other research materials openly available to the research community.

William R Bishai, director of the KwaZulu-Natal Research Institute for Tuberculosis and HIV (K-RITH), argues that the best place to carry out research into a disease is in its midst.

eLife has introduced a new type of article–the Research Advance–that allows the authors of an eLife paper to publish results that build on their original research paper.

A cross-campus, cross-career stage and cross-disciplinary series of discussions at a large public university has produced a series of recommendations for addressing the problems confronting the biomedical research community in the US.