In our institutions of higher education and our research labs, scholars first produce, then buy back, their own content. With the costs rising and access restricted, something's got to give.
How is a scientific article accepted for publication in an academic journal? What is the role of peer reviewers? Where does the system go astray?
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.
More must be done to develop mechanisms based on intrinsic motivations of committed, quality academics. It's important to limit the harms currently being caused by rent seeking.
A study that suggested Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was more psychological than physical has been debunked. How did the data get doctored?
There are major systemic problems associated with peer review that are negatively affecting scientific credibility.
Everything you need to know about predatory publishers.
The scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback – particularly if the comment came from a well-connected academic.
The traditional mode of publishing scientific research faces much criticism – primarily for being too slow and sometimes shoddily done. Maybe fewer publications of higher quality is the way forward.
When research and commerce become entangled, consumers are the losers.
There is mounting evidence to show scientists and researchers why public engagement is worth their while.
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?
Some water researchers are ignoring the evidence offered by sampling if it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. But science should always be honest and open.
Researchers at a fertility clinic in Athens appear to have reversed the menopause in a small group of women – but will the science stand up to scrutiny?
The unavoidable regime of publication pervades contemporary academic life across the world. While presented as a virtuous thing, it can actually suffocate the academic profession.
A number of high-profile cases in which academics have fabricated their data points to a much larger problem around scholarly misconduct.
Sometimes big research news bypasses the usual scientific publishing process. Here's why that's not good for scientists or the public.
Peer review is not infallible, but it's central to how science works. In this extract from Peter Doherty's new book, The Knowledge Wars, he explains how it works in practice.
To the mark the eighth annual Open Access Week, we asked our readers what they wanted to know about the initiative. Here are their questions with answers from our experts.
Researchers who feel pressured to publish in high ranking journals are more likely to cut corners, or even commit academic fraud.