Champions of traditional journal publishers are often unwilling to acknowledge how slow and ineffective correction in science can be.

And so it is finally happening: tomorrow at midnight central European time, the EU bids farewell to the UK. After a tortured three-and-a-half year plod to the exit, the country heads into an eleven month transition period where everything stands still, and then into the unknown of the yet-to-be negotiated Future Relationship. In light of the historic moment, Science|Business contacted science figures around Europe, to find out:

The EOSC FAIR Working Group is examining researcher practice and developing a PID policy, metrics, certification guidelines and an Interoperability Framework to implement a web of FAIR data in EOSC.

Volunteering with an organization can improve communication and help you adapt to the unexpected.

Responding to an emerging debate around the changing nature of the impact agenda in the UK, the author argues that the current moment presents an opportunity to exorcise the ghosts of previous regimes of incentivising and assessing impact.

Science is built on trust. Trust that your experiments will work. Trust in your collaborators to pull their weight. But most importantly, trust that the data we so painstakingly collect are accurate and as representative of the real world as they can be. And so when I realized that I could no longer trust the data that I had reported in some of my papers, I did what I think is the only correct course of action. I retracted them.

The new report, Presidential Recommendations for 2020: A Blueprint for Defending Science and Protecting the Public, outlines a suite of recommendations that the next president can take to protect the health and safety of the public through restoring science to government decisionmaking processes. The report focuses on strengthening three major principles underlying science-based decisionmaking: independence, transparency, and free speech.

Epic, the large electronic health record company, wants to scuttle a rule that requires information to flow freely between EHRs. It should embrace it.

Where are the white guys when we talk about changing the way Ph.D.s are advised and trained?

CO2-​neutral synthetic fuels are technically feasible today and the best promise for decarbonizing aviation. The right policy instruments could turn promise into reality, writes ETHZ professor.

Will preprinting accelerate the death of predatory journals and facilitate better models for scholarly communication?

With the government launching a major review of research bureaucracy and methods, James Wilsdon asks: is it the end of the road for impact measures in grant applications?

The business of higher education, as it relates to libraries, is undergoing continued and drastic change. Managing collections is now only one aspect of library management, which is moving towards a user-centered future.

Scientific publishers as we know them today remain a threatened species. They will have to do more to prove their added value to science and society. Unless they do so, they may not deserve to survive.

The authors of LERU's new paper on research integrity - Inge Lerouge and Ton Hol - discuss trust in science and how to earn it.

Science is messy, and the results of research rarely conform fully to plan or expectation. ‘Clean’ narratives are an artefact of inappropriate pressures and the culture they have generated.

While some talk about global science, China's skyrocketing investment in its scientific sector is causing real anxiety for Europe.

Opinion: Things are not right in the culture of research, and that this is ultimately to the detriment of research. Two issues emerge: the huge complexity of the research ecosystem, and the related problem of collective action that this complexity creates.

An interview with Xiao-Li Meng, Professor of Statistics at Harvard University, about the increasingly central role data science is playing in research and teaching - and how journals, publishers, societies, and librarians fit in this emerging ecosystem.

The open-access era seems to be arriving for academic research, but it looks as if big publishers will still profit.

Oxford initiative aims to link people and disciplines, say Laura Fortunato and Dorothy Bishop.

Richard Horton says periodicals can no longer sit 'passively waiting' for submissions and should instead focus on issues such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

In a recent letter to the White House, a group of corporate publishers and scholarly organizations implore the president to leave intact…

Without human insights, data and the hard sciences will not meet the challenges of the next decade.

Diversity initiatives applaud role models but academics who are carers can have trouble relinquishing family privacy to share their experiences.

The Scientists for EU group is gearing up for 2020 after the desperate disappointment of losing its three-and-a-half year campaign against Brexit - a result that has major implications for research.

This essay argues that giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits.

Preventing unethical behaviour requires regulatory and institutional reforms, as well as lead researchers remaining close to work done in their name, says Futao Huang

Learning to handle failure is just part of scientific life.

I am tempted to think that Taylor & Francis's acquisition of F1000 should be critiqued on grounds of yet more gross for-profit consolidation in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. I believe this is true. But funders won't care. The EU wants to maintain its stance of market non-interference and I do not believe that the for-profit status of such entities bothers others like Wellcome or Gates.