Don't believe every science study you read, because sometimes not even their authors believe them. Here are the issues corrupting good, honest science – and how to fix them. 

Emma Sayer Lecturer, Lancaster University Despite increased efforts to improve gender equality in academia, gender bias still affects many areas of science.

Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?”

It’s the most wondrous time of the year! Peer Review Week is the time when the scholarly communications community comes together to recognise the importance and value of peer review and peer review…

Dr. Joerg Heber has been appointed Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE.

When I decided in my third year of grad school that I didn't want a career in academia, I took the initiative to seek out experiences that would help me build skills for other jobs.

Recap of contest launched by the Winnower and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to answer the question – How do we ensure that research is reproducible?

Windows, desks and employees are being wired up in a quest to create healthy, evidence-based environments.

John Ioannidis suggests that the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in literature have each increased by more than 2500% since 1991.

Today sees the publication on bioRxiv of a revised version of our preprint outlining “A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions".

I have just learned that Elsevier, after a lengthy review and negotiation process with the US Patent Office, have been awarded a US Patent on “Online Peer Review System and Method”. What is this about and why is it ridiculous to me.

Reproducible, transparent and reliable science.

We’re interested in hearing about the challenges faced by early-career scientists worldwide, especially if you've recently started your own lab, are struggling to maintain a lab, or have left research. We want to hear your stories. Your answers may feature in articles published by Nature's news team.

The web was built specifically to share research papers amongst scientists. Despite this being the first goal of the modern web, most research is still published behind a paywall. We have recently highlighted famous math papers that reside behind a pa

Research creates its own problems. Articles may be withdrawn because of irregularities, results can be impossible to reproduce, methods are often non-standardised, and publications may not be accessible. The search is now on for solutions.

The replication crisis in science is largely attributable to a mismatch in our expectations of how often findings should replicate and how difficult it is to actually discover true findings in certain fields.

OpenTrials will officially launch its beta on Monday 10th October 2016 at the World Health Summit in Berlin.

First thing in the morning is when I'm at my mental best, and when I'm still most in control of my time, so I now use the first hour of my day to write.

A selection of events, videos, and policy resources about policy, and know the goings-on in Brussels, in Europe and the world.

Science is a big thing, but changing it relies on simple decisions made by individual researchers.

If we continue on the current path of adding ever tighter controls and conformities to research without understanding their effects on the impact and quality of that research, then we will likely be wasting money.

Responding to reviewer reports is a key part of publishing academic work in peer reviewed journals. But if you’ve received mixed reviews of a paper or are publishing for the first time, where do you start?

Listen to women from across the Administration tell the stories of their personal heroes across the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

While things are improving, we need to do a much better job of encouraging scientists to be stronger communicators, and share the wonders of science, and the important results of their research, to the broader world. To do less is a moral failure of science and academia.

Talk by Vitek Tracz.

Richard Morey on thinking about evidence, selling dog food, and how individual scientist can deal with the crisis in the social sciences.

How to improve it?

At the ASAPbio Funders’ Workshop (May 24, 2016, NIH), representatives from 16 funding agencies requested that ASAPbio “develop a proposal describing the governance, infrastructure and standards desired for a preprint service that represents the views of the broadest number of stakeholders.” We are now holding a Technical Workshop to advise on the infrastructure and standards for a Central Service (CS) for preprints. ASAPbio will integrate the output of the meeting and community and stakeholder feedback into a proposal to funding agencies this fall. The funders may issue a formal RFA to which any interested parties could apply for funding.

Sanjay Srivastava’s assessment of the state of psychology mixes a certain four-letter word and gallows humor with a desire to raise awareness of important research issues in his field.

Nobel prize winning ideas are not always accepted by the community.  By definition, they are paradigm shifting, revolutionary.