This study estimates the development of hybrid open access (OA), i.e. articles published openly on the web within subscription-access journals.

John P.A. Ioannidis argues that the production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions.

Although the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is widely acknowledged to be a poor indicator of the quality of individual papers, it is used routinely to evaluate research and researchers. Here, we present a simple method for generating the citation distributions that underlie JIFs.

It is useful to consider the trajectory of both scientific and literary publishing on the grid-group plane defined by Mary Douglas which arranges attitudes along two axes: one ranging from the hierarchical to the egalitarian, and the other spanning individualistic to communitarian. I would contend that, in both cases, there has been a move from the hierarchical/communitarian quadrant towards the egalitarian/individualistic zone.

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years.

Citation metrics are very influential and their normalization is a contentious issue. Each normalization approach has advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper use of these metrics.

This paper presents a novel model of science funding that exploits the wisdom of the scientific crowd. Each researcher receives an equal, unconditional part of all available science funding on a yearly basis, but is required to individually donate to other scientists a given fraction of all they receive. Science funding thus moves from one scientist to the next in such a way that scientists who receive many donations must also redistribute the most. As the funding circulates through the scientific community it is mathematically expected to converge on a funding distribution favored by the entire scientific community. This is achieved without any proposal submissions or reviews.

We present a set of computing tools and techniques that every researcher can and should adopt. These recommendations synthesize inspiration from our own work, from the experiences of the thousands of people who have taken part in Software Carpentry and Data Carpentry workshops over the past six years, and from a variety of other guides. Unlike some other guides, our recommendations are aimed specifically at people who are new to research computing.

A dataset that is the result of content mining 167,318 published psychology articles for statistical test results.

Peer review is widely viewed as an essential step for ensuring scientific quality of a work and is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. In this work we investigate the feasibility of a tool capable of generating fake reviews for a given scientific paper automatically.

A contribution to the open innovation, open science, open to the world agenda 2016.

Metrics derived from Twitter and other social media are increasingly used to estimate the broader social impacts of scholarship. Such efforts, however, may produce highly misleading results, as the entities that participate in conversations about science on these platforms are largely unknown.

Novel breakthroughs in research can have a dramatic impact on scientific discovery but face some distinct disadvantages in getting wider recognition.

Approximately one-fifth of papers with supplementary Excel gene lists contain erroneous gene name conversions.

All software used for the analysis should be either carefully documented or, better yet, openly shared and directly accessible to others.

This Community Page presents an open-access platform, protocols.io ( https://www.protocols.io/ ), which enables collaborative sharing and discovery of state-of-the-art research methods.

Badges that acknowledge open practices significantly increase sharing of reported data and materials, as well as subsequent accessibility, correctness, usability, and completeness.

Jean-Paul Chretien and colleagues argue that recent Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks highlight the importance of data sharing in scientific research.

UC Davis and CDL Investigation of the Institutional Costs of Gold Open Access

A system of academic endorsement based on blockchain technology would be decoupled from the publication process, which would allow expeditious appraisal of all kinds of scientific output in a transparent manner without relying on any central authority.

Authors of systematic review articles sometimes overlook misconduct and conflicts of interest present in the research they are analyzing, according to a recent study published in BMJ Open.

A figshare case study of Micah Vandegrift's Digital Humanities research.

Through highlighting six recent advances in research infrastructure, this whitepaper seeks to recast how we think about metadata - not as a series of static records, but as objects that move between systems and organizations.

It is clear that the journal impact factor is not effective in predicting future citations of successful authors.

Utilizing 250,000 papers from ArXiv.org we construct large coauthorship networks to investigate how individual network positions influence scientific success. Surprisingly, inter(sub)disciplinary collaborations decrease the probability of getting a paper published in specialized journals for almost all positions.

A survey of Global Higher Education.

How much German universities and research organisations spent on open access publication fees.

Harvard Library publishes report on converting subscription journals to open access.

The production, archival, and sharing of data may actually be a more effective way to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Study showing open access papers have a 50% greater citation advantage than articles behind paywalls.