Publication of He Jiankui's work on gene-edited infants would raise ethical concerns for journals, Wired and others report.
Following a pilot project, Genome Biology is to adopt a transparent peer review process at the beginning of 2019.
Indiana University School of Medicine's Aaron Carroll discusses the flaws and ways to improve peer review at the New York Times.
One of the largest repositories of molecular brain cancer data in the world, the enhanced REMBRANDT is more comprehensive than an earlier NCI-hosted version.
A pair of researchers has found that retracted papers are often still cited and call for them to be harder to access, Retraction Watch reports.
The Economist writes that an increasing number of scientific journals don't do peer review.
Magdalena Skipper, the incoming editor-in-chief of Nature, speaks with NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday.
What happens to scientific papers when certain journals are no longer published? Some scientists are trying to make sure they don't disappear forever.
An analysis appearing in PeerJ finds that social media mentions of a paper may lead to increased citations.
The US National Institutes of Health has decided to discontinue PubMed Commons because of low uptake.
A genome-wide association study highlights a potential role for hair follicles in acne risk, according to New Scientist.
Newsday reports that breast cancer genetic testing guidelines for are out of date and may miss individuals.
In Cell this week: gene editing-based strategy to screen for immune system regulators, ancient plague patterns, and more.
