Could the real open access please stand up? If more research was published according to true open access principles, we'd see better application of evidence for everyone's benefit.
A rush of ancient DNA projects in Africa has presented the curators of archaeological skeletons with ethical issues because research requires the destruction of human bone.
Today's scientific research is characterized by interdisciplinary, international collaboration. Awards like the Nobel Prizes haven't caught up.
Scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. Peer review filters the good science from the bad.
Peer review is a crucial part of the academic publication system. It is also a critical part of the hiring and evaluation process. What's the problem with peer review?