A lack of skilled workers and managers drags the country down.

The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?

Bias in the study of gender inequality in STEM.

An average academic journal article is read in its entirety by about 10 people. To shape policy, professors should start penning commentaries in popular media.

There are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators.

In recent years science has entered a crisis of trust. The results of many scientific experiments appear to be surprisingly hard to reproduce, while mistakes have highlighted flaws in the peer review system.

Tech firms can banish sexism without sacrificing the culture that made them successful.

Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang.

For half a century, the government funded research. Times are changing.

A policy change that could discourage UK government scientists from talking to the media is a backwards step. All researchers need to speak up to put science on the political agenda.

The same organisations that make it difficult to get a grant can be ridiculously laid back about how their money is spent once they have signed it over.

Advertising science as a driver of economic growth is a long‐term losing strategy.

Divertion of Horizon cash to investment fund will boost financial 'firepower', says Carlos Moedas.

Publications don't have to be successful immediately. This is shown by an article of Albert Einstein and colleagues that gained importance 85 years after having been published. By Anton Zeilinger.

US funding agencies are turning to a Silicon Valley entrepreneur to focus fledgling biomedical companies on success — even when that means making a scientific course correction.

Europe's research commissioner Carlos Moedas on funding models, diplomacy and scientific advice.

Much of our contemporary approach to publishing research began with the launch of that journal, but what does the future hold?

"Peer review is mortally sick" according to Vitek Tracz.

Behind the headlines are exciting initiatives that have the potential to, not just improve peer review, but optimize it for 21st century scholarship.

As the world warms and technology improves, researchers and institutions should look at their carbon footprints and question whether they really need to travel to academic conferences.

Things are improving for women working in most STEM-based fields, although there are some notable exceptions.

Free from bureaucracy, independent science labs offer a flexibility that can't be matched by universities.

When people talk about the flaws in the scientific process, they often raise the problem of peer review. Right now, when a researcher submits an article for publication in a journal, it's sent off to his or her peers for constructive criticism or even rejection.

The professionally trained scientists who make decisions on biology papers at the big journals with the big journal impact factors have significantly less scientific experience and far weaker publication records than the editors of lower journal impact factor biology journals.

Reasons for removing time-bound criteria from MRC fellowship applications to help give people the time they need.

Livre blanc sur la visibilité de la recherche française : enquête et recommandations.

This paper presents three case studies describing the use of altmetrics across three research-intensive higher education institutions in the UK and USA.

The exponential growth in the number of scientific papers makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of all the publications relevant to their work. Consequently, the attention that can be devoted to individual papers, measured by their citation counts, is bound to decay rapidly.

International graduate students and their decisions to stay or leave the U.S. upon graduation.

A systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users develops a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher’s point of view.