Authorship represents a highly discussed topic in nowadays academia. The share of co-authored papers has increased substantially in recent years allowing scientists to specialize and focus on specific tasks. But what does authorship actually mean in the social sciences?

The article discusses how the interpretation of 'performance' from a presentation using accurate but summary bibliometrics can change when iterative deconstruction and visualization of the same dataset is applied.

Open science will make science more efficient, reliable and responsive to societal challenges. The European Commission has sought to advance Open Science policy from its inception in a holistic and integrated way, covering all aspects of the research cycle from scientific discovery and review to sharing knowledge, publishing and outreach. 

This Frontiers blog post from presents a journal analysis contrasting open access journals and subscription journals based on data from SCImago (Scopus).

When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, and implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold is not acceptable.

Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal.

Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal.

A paper providing a bibliometric analysis of Zenodo records by using different metrics for citedness, including citation, usage, and altmetrics. 

Article enumerating five characteristics that a scientific code in computational science should possess.

One of the strongest beliefs in scholarly publishing is that journals seeking a high impact factor should be highly selective. There is evidence showing this is wrong.

Peer-review is neither reliable, fair, nor a valid basis for predicting 'impact': as quality control, peer-review is not fit for purpose.

"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues.

Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review.