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.

Peer review scores were poorly predictive of research project success in this large dataset, suggesting that reviewers cannot reliably predict which meritorious applications are most likely to be productive.

The fact that it is difficult to evaluate and compare the outputs of individual researchers might actually be good for science.

By sharing their experiences, early-career scientists can help to make the case for increased government funding for researchers.

The identification of four acidic amino acids as potential calcium-binding residues in the TMEM16A calcium-activated chloride channel furthers the molecular understanding of this ion channel family.

Analysis of data on drug-gene interactions suggests that decentralized collaboration will increase the robustness of scientific findings in biomedical research.

What can institutions and funding agencies do to address an array of issues facing the biomedical research community in the United States?

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.

A more balanced distribution of NIH grant funding among investigators would strengthen the diversity of the research enterprise, increase the likelihood of scientific breakthroughs, and lead to a greater return on taxpayers' investments.