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.
Scientists go to great lengths to ensure that data are collected and analysed properly, so why do they apply different standards to data about the number of times research papers have been cited and viewed?
Staff from the Mayo Clinic in the US and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden describe a joint transatlantic course intended to broaden the horizons of the next generation of researchers in the field of regenerative medicine.
Interviews with senior biomedical researchers reveal a perceived decline in trust in the scientific enterprise, in large part because the quantity of new data exceeds the field's ability to process it appropriately.
Publication bias, in which positive results are preferentially reported by authors and published by journals, can restrict the visibility of evidence against false claims and allow such claims to be canonized inappropriately as facts.