Experimental credit.

asks authors to post source data of every key experiment. A free platform and curation support ensures this data archiving service does not become a chore. Figure panel authorship allows scientists to claim their experiments for transparency, credit and accountability.

Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era.

Our research activities would be better served if they were communicated in a manner that is openly accessible to the public and all researchers. The research we share is often limited to representative data included in research papers-science would be much more efficient if all reproducible research data were shared alongside detailed methods and protocols, in the paradigm called Open Science. On the other hand, one primary function of research journals is to select manuscripts of good quality, verify the authenticity of the data and its impact, and deliver to the appropriate audience for critical evaluation and verification.

A selective journal.

The stringent selection criteria applied at EMBO Reports result in the publication of around 16% of submitted papers. What do we select for and why is this a service to the scientific community? A counterpoint to EMBO Reports (2023) e58127.

Constructive correction.

A fundamental tenet of the scientific process is that science is self-correcting. Efficient correction of the scientific literature requires a more nuanced set of policies and tools that lower the bar to author self-correction. The community has to embrace correction as a signal of scholarly quality.

Open Access for Open Science.

The EMBO Journal and EMBO Reports join EMBO Molecular Medicine, Molecular Systems Biology and Life Science Alliance as Open Access journals from 2024. Full Open Access at EMBO Press completes another step towards the goal of an integrated Open Science approach for the dissemination of highly selected and curated science.

Publishing unpredictable research outcomes.

EMBO Reports welcomes 'Independent First Confirmation' studies for important findings. The editors will also consider well-developed null data on pivotal open questions in the biosciences, and studies that refute prominent published claims.

Rubble to Rouble: how can science respond to war?

The unprovoked war on Ukraine has left many in the global scientific community, including Russia, shellshocked. We need to persuade the Kremlin to return to a rules-based international order, while supporting Ukrainians, but also Russian scientists facing both internal and external sanctions.

COVID-19 vaccination, time for a second breath?

One year into the Covid-19 vaccination campaign, C. Gerke, B. Pulverer and P.

The fifth decade.

As the journal transitions from fourth to fifth decade, its fourth and fifth Chief Editor discuss its role in the research process.

Survival of the Wealthiest?

A number of promising COVID-19 vaccine candidates may pass approval this month. However, the pandemic will only be brought into check through an equitable, epidemiologically informed distribution policy. The health emergency provides a unique opportunity for a new paradigm to mitigate between global health, national and commercial interests.

Registered animal studies and null data.

EMBO Press encourages to document or pre-register animal experiments on the new Animal Study Registry to increase reproducibility and efficacy of animal research.

Review Commons-pre-journal peer review.

EMBO Press and ASAPbio launch Review Commons, a platform to provide authors with journal-independent peer review of their manuscripts and preprints.

Peer Review beyond Journals.

The EMBO Journal has extended its Transparent Process beyond journal confines to post referee comments alongside preprint versions of papers and to partner with Review Commons, a pre-journal peer-review platform for Refereed Preprints in the life sciences.

Self-correction prevents withdrawal syndrome.

The scientific research paper remains the primary mode for documenting scholarly achievement in a stable, citable manner, yet the toolkit that allows for changes and corrections to research papers limits the optimal dissemination of reliable research findings.

Open Access-or Open Science?

Open Access mandates in Europe raise the question if the priority is to reduce publishing costs, or the overdue conversion to Open Science communication. At risk are not only high‐quality journals, but also community institutions and international research collaboration.

Publication catalysis-lowering activation energy.

Life Science Alliance, a new peer reviewed open access platform for and by the research community to increase the efficacy of publishing high quality research findings.

Trump's travel travesty.

The recent executive order by US President Donald Trump to bar citizens from seven countries from entering the USA has a chilling effect on the free exchange of people and ideas in science. [Image: see text]

Preparing for Preprints.

Preprints reduce delays in sharing research results. With appropriate policies to encourage use and quality assurance mechanisms, their widespread adoption would benefit everyone in the scientific community.

Reproducibility blues.

Research findings advance science only if they are significant, reliable and reproducible. Scientists and journals must publish robust data in a way that renders it optimally reproducible. Reproducibility has to be incentivized and supported by the research infrastructure but without dampening innovation.

When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record.

A reliable scientific literature is crucial for an efficient research process. Peer review remains a highly successful quality assurance mechanism, but it does not always prevent data and image aberrations and the publication of flawed data. Journals need to be in a position to detect such problems and take proportionate action.

Dora the Brave.

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) points out that using the Journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the value or quality of specific research and individual scientists leads to biased research assessment. How can we resist misusing metrics?