Harnessing social media to challenge scientific misinformation.

Ben Rein is a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University and a science communicator on social media. In January, 2022, he and his colleagues wrote an open letter to Spotify to combat scientific misinformation. Here, Rein tells his story, sharing thoughts and lessons learned from publishing the open letter.

A uniform format for manuscript submission.

Many scientists spend unnecessary time reformatting papers to submit them to different journals. We propose a uniform submission format that we hope journals will include in their options for submission. Widespread adoption of this uniform submission format could shorten the submission and publishing process, freeing up time for research.

How to Boost the Impact of Scientific Conferences.

We can maximize the impact of scientific conferences by uploading all conference presentations, posters, and abstracts to highly trafficked public repositories for each content type. Talks can be hosted on sites like YouTube and Youku, posters can be published on Figshare, and papers and abstracts can become open access preprints.

Models that matter.

Models, like the Central Dogma, are a core feature of many papers we publish, yet their utility can be undermined when they are either overly simplistic or overly complicated, and it can contribute to misunderstandings when key details or limitations are left out. In this editorial, we connect different versions of the Central Dogma and how we think about scientific models more generally.

Terri Grodzicker: 35 years of shaping scientific publishing and communication.

GUEST EDITOR.

Faculty searches get a facelift.

Hiring committees address the glut of highly qualified applicants for faculty positions by experimenting with new evaluation methods and adapting their expectations for today's increasingly competitive academic environment.

Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time.

Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes1,2, wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, 'stand on the shoulders of giants'3-7. Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances8,9. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields10,11. Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric-the CD index12-that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics1,13-17. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the 'shoulders of giants' view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.

Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses.

Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However, for scientists wishing to publish obtained images and image-analysis results, there are currently no unified guidelines for best practices. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here, we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and describing image analyses for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability and reporting image-analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby to heighten the quality and explanatory power of microscopy data.

Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing.

While scientific researchers often aim for high productivity, prioritizing the quantity of publications may come at the cost of time and effort dedicated to individual research. It is thus important to examine the relationship between productivity and disruption for individual researchers. Here, we show that with the increase in the number of published papers, the average citation per paper will be higher yet the mean disruption of papers will be lower. In addition, we find that the disruption of scientists' papers may decrease when they are highly productive in a given year. The disruption of papers in each year is not determined by the total number of papers published in the author's career, but rather by the productivity of that particular year. Besides, more productive authors also tend to give references to recent and high-impact research. Our findings highlight the potential risks of pursuing productivity and aim to encourage more thoughtful career planning among scientists.

PLOS Biology at 20: Ain't no mountain high enough.

PLOS began publishing influential open access science in 2003. As PLOS Biology enters its third decade, we reflect on our mission, what has changed, what remains to be done and our wishes for the future.

PLOS Biology at 20: Exploring possible futures.

Twenty years ago this month, PLOS Biology was launched, helping to catalyze a movement that has transformed publishing in the life sciences. In this issue, we explore how the community can continue innovating for positive change in the next decades.

Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional.

Academic journals have been publishing the results of biomedical research for more than 350 years. Reviewing their history reveals that the ways in which journals vet submissions have changed over time, culminating in the relatively recent appearance of the current peer-review process. Journal brand and Impact Factor have meanwhile become quality proxies that are widely used to filter articles and evaluate scientists in a hypercompetitive prestige economy. The Web created the potential for a more decoupled publishing system in which articles are initially disseminated by preprint servers and then undergo evaluation elsewhere. To build this future, we must first understand the roles journals currently play and consider what types of content screening and review are necessary and for which papers. A new, open ecosystem involving preprint servers, journals, independent content-vetting initiatives, and curation services could provide more multidimensional signals for papers and avoid the current conflation of trust, quality, and impact. Academia should strive to avoid the alternative scenario, however, in which stratified publisher silos lock in submissions and simply perpetuate this conflation.

No assembly required: Time for stronger, simpler publishing standards for DNA sequences.

Uniformly accessible DNA sequences are needed to improve experimental reproducibility and automation. Rather than descriptions of how engineered DNA is assembled, publishers should require complete and empirically validated sequences.

A guide to the visual analysis and communication of biomolecular structural data.

Biologists regularly face an increasingly difficult task - to effectively communicate bigger and more complex structural data using an ever-expanding suite of visualization tools. Whether presenting results to peers or educating an outreach audience, a scientist can achieve maximal impact with minimal production time by systematically identifying an audience's needs, planning solutions from a variety of visual communication techniques and then applying the most appropriate software tools. A guide to available resources that range from software tools to professional illustrators can help researchers to generate better figures and presentations tailored to any audience's needs, and enable artistically inclined scientists to create captivating outreach imagery.

Gender gaps at the academies.

Historically, a large majority of newly elected members of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS) were men. Within the past two decades, however, that situation has changed, and in the last 3 y, women made up about 40% of the new members in both academies. We build lists of active scholars from publications in the top journals in three fields-psychology, mathematics, and economics-and develop a series of models to compare changes in the probability of selection of women as members of the NAS and AAAS from the 1960s to today, controlling for publications and citations. In the early years of our sample, women were less likely to be selected as members than men with similar records. By the 1990s, the selection process at both academies was approximately gender neutral, conditional on publications and citations. In the past 20 y, however, a positive preference for female members has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are 3 to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the AAAS and NAS than men with similar publication and citation records. The positive preference for women may be in part a reflection of concerns that women face higher barriers to publishing in top journals and may receive less credit for their work.

Reproducible image handling and analysis.

Image data are universal in life sciences research. Their proper handling is not. A significant proportion of image data in research papers show signs of mishandling that undermine their interpretation. We propose that a precise description of the image processing and analysis applied is required to address this problem. A new norm for reporting reproducible image analyses will diminish mishandling, as it will alert co-authors, referees, and journals to aberrant image data processing or, if published nonetheless, it will document it to the reader. To promote this norm, we discuss the effectiveness of this approach and give some step-by-step instructions for publishing reproducible image data processing and analysis workflows.