Nobel prize winning ideas are not always accepted by the community.  By definition, they are paradigm shifting, revolutionary. Accordingly, many breakthroughs that are in our textbooks today were initially rejected, if not ridiculed, by the scientific community. Howard Temin proposed a reversal of the central dogma, wherein RNA could create DNA.  It was called "ludicrous" and his Nobel "came after a lonely battle to overcome derisive criticism from scientific leaders who refused to believe in his theory that some viruses carry their genetic information in the form of RNA, which is then copied into DNA in infected cell." Similarly, Werner Arber, the scientist who discovered restriction enzymes worked, "in a climate of almost total indifference, notably that of the committees and organizations tasked with allocating funds for research" Jacob 1998.Here we outline 8 Nobel prize papers that were initially rejected by anonymous pre-publication peer review and ask, "What Nobel ideas are we rejecting and/or delaying today?"

The arXiv is the most popular preprint repository in the world. Since its inception in 1991, the arXiv has allowed researchers to freely share publication-ready articles prior to formal peer review. The growth and the popularity of the arXiv emerged as a result of new technologies that made document creation and dissemination easy, and cultural practices that incentivized collaboration and data sharing. The arXiv represents a unique place in the history of research communication and the Web itself, however it has arguably changed very little since its creation.  Here we look at the strengths and weaknesses of arXiv in an effort to identify what possible improvements can be made based on new technologies not previously available. Based on this, we argue that a modern arXiv might in fact not look at all like the arXiv of today.  

AbstractA single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; 3) Results: Summarize the article’s main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

The web was built specifically to share research papers amongst scientists. Despite this being the first goal of the modern web, most research is still published behind a paywall. We have recently highlighted famous math papers that reside behind a paywall as well as ten papers that have achieved a near rockstar status in research and the public. Here we systematically look at the top one hundred cited papers of all time and find that 65% of these papers are not open. Stated another way, THE WORLD’S MOST IMPORTANT RESEARCH IS INACCESSIBLE FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD. A few facts about the top 100 cited papers: 1. The weighted average of all the paywalls is: $32.33, rounding to the nearest cent. 2. There are 1, 088, 779 citations of the Open Access articles, so, if they cost the same on average as the Paywalled articles and were paid for individually, they would cost a total of: $35, 199, 108.44–that’s 14 Bugatti Veyrons, or enough to buy everyone in New York City a Starbucks Tall coffee and chocolate chip cookie. In comparison, the total amount for the paywalled articles, assuming everyone bought the paywalled articles individually, is $54, 722, 252.80. 3. That’s 23 Bugatti Veyrons, or enough to buy everyone in New York City a footlong from Subway. 4. Although 65% of the most cited papers are paywalled, only 61% of those paper’s citations are from paywalled journals. Thus the open access articles in this list are, on average, cited more than the paywalled ones.

The majority of the world's population has not and will not ever publish a scientific paper. That fact is even more true for pets. Yes, dogs, cats, hamsters. Pets. Surprisingly, however, there are papers with pets as authors. Here's a selection of three articles coauthored by our furry friends.1. Hamster: Tisha 🐹 Do you have a paper with a Nobel laureate? No? Well... Hamster Tisha does! The pet hamster of the physics Nobel laureate Andrew Geim was co author on the publication "Detection of earth rotation with a diamagnetically levitating gyroscope" \cite{Geim_2001}. Go Tisha!

This guide outlines key points for preparing primary research manuscripts for submission to Nature Communications. The corresponding author should be familiar with the Nature journals’ editorial policies and is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication between coauthors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list and agree with its order, and that they are aware the manuscript is to be submitted. For more information on editorial and authorship policies please review our Guide to Authors.Cover letterAlthough optional, the cover letter is an excellent opportunity to briefly discuss the context and importance of the submitted work and why it is appropriate for the journal. Please avoid repeating information that is already present in the abstract and introduction. The cover letter is not shared with the referees, and should be used to provide confidential information, such as conflicts of interest, and to declare any related work that is in press or submitted elsewhere.Main manuscriptThe Nature journals are flexible with regard to the format of initial submissions. Within reason, style and length will not influence consideration of a manuscript. If revisions are requested, the editor will provide detailed formatting instructions at that time. For information on length and formatting consult Nature Communications' content types.Title.If possible, this should be 15 words or fewer and should not contain technical terms, abbreviations, punctuation and active verbs.Authors.Corresponding author(s) should be identified with an asterisk.Abstract.Provide a general introduction to the topic and a brief nontechnical summary of your main results and their implication.Text length and formatting. Attention to the following details can help expedite publication if we invite a revision after external review.Articles: an abstract of approximately 150 words, unreferenced; main text of no more than 5,000 words and 10 display items (figures, tables). As a guideline, Articles allow up to 70 references. Section headings should be used and subheadings may appear in 'Results'. Avoid 'Introduction' as a heading.Methods.The Methods section appears in all online original research articles and should contain all elements necessary for interpretation and replication of the results. Methods should be written as concisely as possible and typically do not exceed 3,000 words but may be longer if necessary. We encourage you to deposit any step-by-step protocols used in your study in Protocol Exchange, an open resource maintained by NPG. These protocols are linked to the Methods section upon publication.References.These may only contain citations and should list only one publication with each number. Include the title of the cited article or dataset. Acknowledgements (optional). Keep acknowledgements brief and do not include thanks to anonymous referees or editors, or effusive comments. Grant or contribution numbers may be acknowledged. Author contributions. You must include a statement that specifies the individual contributions of each co-author. For example: "A.P.M. ‘contributed’ Y and Z; B.T.R. ‘contributed’ Y,” etc. See our authorship policies for more details.Competing financial interests.Submission of a competing financial interests statement is required for all content of the journal.Materials & Correspondence.Indicate the author(s) to whom correspondence and material requests should be addressed.Tables.Each table should be submitted as a word document and accompanied by a short title sentence describing what the table shows. Further details can be included as footnotes to the table.FiguresHigh-resolution image files are not required at initial submission, but please ensure that images are of sufficient resolution for referees to properly assess the data.

Peer review is an important issue in scholarly communication.  Arguably, it is the defining characteristic between a blog and a scholarly article. Authorea believes in exploring new models of peer review in ways that peer reviewers can be rewarded and recognized.  Accordingly, we offer authors and the public at large the ability to annotate documents, to write post-publication peer reviews, and to post work immediately and openly. Publons, an innovative young company co-founded by Andrew Preston and Daniel Johnston, was started specifically to improve how peer review is coordinated, accomplished, and rewarded.  We've known Andrew for a few years and are happy to have him as our first interviewee in a new series we're calling Academics Turned Founders.

General Research Article Organization and Text SpecificationsCurrent Biology research articles generally contain the following sections in this order: Title, Authors, Affiliations, Contact Information, Additional Title Page Footnotes, Summary, Introduction (for Articles only), Results, Discussion, Experimental Procedures, Author Contributions, Acknowledgments, References, Figure and Table Legends, Figures and Tables, Graphical Abstract (optional, see below), and Supplemental Information. The text (title through legends) should be provided as one document, which may also contain the tables. Figures should be provided separately. Supplemental Information should also be provided separately.Gene symbols should be italicized; protein products of the loci are not italicized. Nonstandard abbreviations should be defined when first used in the text. Use of abbreviations should be kept at a minimum. Manuscript file types that we can accept for submission include Word, RTF, and TXT. Required items differ for each article type and are specified during the submission process.Please note that the text should be double spaced and pages should be numbered. Although summaries need to be entered as text files separate from the body of the manuscript during the online submission process, they should also be included within the manuscript file as usual.Manuscripts that do not conform to the format guidelines may be returned to the authors for reformatting.Preparation of Specific SectionsTitleTitles can occupy no more than three lines of type. Each line can contain no more than 50 characters, including spaces. The title should convey the conceptual significance of the paper to a broad readership.Authors/AffiliationsAuthor names should be spelled out rather than set in initials. Authors should be footnoted to corresponding affiliations. Affiliations should contain the following core information: department(s)/subunit(s); institution; city, state/region, postal code; country. Note: Please check author names and affiliations carefully, as we cannot amend or correct these sections after publication.Corresponding AuthorThe "Correspondence" line should include the e-mail address(es) of the corresponding author(s). One corresponding author is preferred for reasons stated in the Authorship section of Editorial Policies above. But there is no mandatory limit on the number of corresponding authors that may be listed. Corresponding authors may also provide a Twitter handle as a secondary means of contact. Please see the corresponding author responsibilities noted above in the Editorial Policies.Lead ContactEvery author list must identify one corresponding author as a Lead Contact, noted by a footnote in the manuscript. If there is only one corresponding author, that author will be listed as the Lead Contact. Please see the Lead Contact responsibilities noted above in the Authorship section of the Editorial Policies.Additional FootnotesFootnotes are only allowed on page 1 of the text (and in tables). They may include a Lead Contact (mandatory) or a present address (optional), or they may indicate co-first authorship (optional). For more on designations of author contributions, please see the "Authorship" section above, under Editorial Policies.Summary (for Articles)The Summary should not exceed 250 words, should contain no references, and should be written as a single paragraph that summarizes the background to the study, the key results, and the conclusions. It should clearly convey the conceptual advance and significance of the work to a broad readership.Summary (for Reports)The Summary should be written as a single paragraph that summarizes, in no more than 250 words, the background to the work, the new results being reported in the study, and the significance of these findings; references should also be cited in this paragraph. Please note that, for Reports, all essential background information should be included in the summary, and the Results (or Results and Discussion) section should begin immediately with a presentation of the new findings.KeywordsAuthors are encouraged to include up to ten keywords that will be associated with the article on Cell Press platforms and on PubMed. These keywords should be listed in the manuscript after the Summary, separated by commas.Highlights and eTOC BlurbHighlights are a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article. Specifications: up to four bullet points may be included; the length of an individual bullet point should not exceed 85 characters (including spaces); only the core results of the paper should be covered.The eTOC blurb is a short summary of the main take-home message of the paper and should describe the context and significance of the findings for the broader readership. Please see the "In Brief" links in the Table of Contents for examples. Specifications: This blurb should be 350 characters or fewer; this blurb should be written in the third person and refer to “First Author et al.”Both are required for all research papers and will be displayed online with the article; however, they will not appear in print. On the EM page where you are asked to upload your files, please choose "Highlights and eTOC Blurb" and upload a single Word document containing both your Highlights and the eTOC Blurb.Introduction (for Articles)The Introduction must be written from the standpoint of biologists without special knowledge, must clearly state the background to the research and its aims, and should end with a brief statement of what has been achieved.Results (for Articles)This section should be divided into subsections with short informative subheadings. Footnotes should not be used.Discussion (for Articles)The Discussion must clearly explain the main conclusions of the research and give clear explanations of their importance and relevance, placing them into a broader context. It should not be redundant with the Results section. This section may contain subheadings and can in some cases be combined with the Results section. A separate short Conclusions section may also be included if useful.Results and Discussion (for Reports)The Results and Discussion for Reports may be combined or kept separate and may be broken into subsections with short informative subheadings. The final paragraph should summarize the main findings of the research and their implications. Footnotes should not be used.Experimental Procedures (for Articles)The Experimental Procedures should, at minimum, include enough detail to allow the reader to understand the general experimental design and to be able to assess the data presented in the figures. This section should also include a description of any statistical methods employed in the study. More detailed protocols and procedures needed for readers to reproduce experiments should be included in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures, but it is not appropriate to move the majority of the Experimental Procedures to Supplemental Information in order to shorten the text. Any supplemental tables that list materials used in the study (oligonucleotides, strains, etc.) should be included within the relevant section of the Supplemental Experimental Procedures; these tables should have a title but should not be numbered. If your paper contains Supplemental Experimental Procedures, please make sure that they are referred to within the main Experimental Procedures so that it is clear to the reader that additional details are available online. Please see our complete Supplemental Information guidelines for more information.Experimental Procedures (for Reports)Experimental Procedures should be divided into subsections. A separate section may not be necessary in a Report if methods can be described concisely and adequately in the text and figure/table legends, but more detailed protocols and procedures needed for readers to reproduce experiments should be included in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures.Author ContributionsFor primary research papers, we ask you to include a dedicated Author Contributions section preceding the Acknowledgments to give information about individual author contributions to the work. Please keep this section as concise as possible and use initials to indicate author identity. All of the authors listed on the paper should be mentioned in this section at least once. We are happy for you to use a traditional format such as “A.B. and C.D. conducted the experiments, E.F. designed the experiments and wrote the paper…” but would also encourage you to use the CRediT taxonomy instead.AcknowledgmentsThis section may acknowledge contributions from non-authors and/or list funding sources, and it should include a statement of any conflicts of interest. Please check this section carefully, as we cannot allow amendments or corrections after publication.ReferencesReferences must be cited by number consecutively in square brackets in the text. Any references that occur only in the tables or figure legends should be numbered according to where that table or figure is first cited in the main text, in relation to the sequence of citation numbering. (For example, if the last reference cited before the first citation of Figure 1 was reference [15], and the Figure 1 legend contains a reference that is first cited in the Figure 1 legend, that reference should be numbered as [16], and the next reference cited in the main text would be [17].) References should include only articles that are published or in press. For references to in press articles, please confirm with the cited journal that the article is in fact accepted and in press and include a DOI number and online publication date. Unpublished data, submitted manuscripts, abstracts, and personal communications should be cited within the text only. Personal communication should be documented by a letter of permission. Submitted articles should be cited as unpublished data, data not shown, or personal communication. Journal abbreviations should follow Index Medicus/Medline. Up to ten authors, followed by et al. if there are more than ten authors, should be listed. References should be in Current Biology numbered style, examples of which are included below:Article in a periodical:1. Holmes, S., and Watson, J. (1993). Identification of the function of the moriarty gene product. Curr. Biol. 3, 121–129.Article in a book:2. Holmes, S., and Watson, J. (1991). Identification of the function of the moriarty gene product. In Biological Mysteries Solved, A.C. Doyle, ed. (London: Science Press), pp. 56–62.An entire book:3. Doyle, A.C. (1991). Biological Mysteries Solved, Second Edition (London: Science Press).Figure LegendsLegends should be included in the submitted manuscript as a separate section. Each figure legend should have a brief title that describes the entire figure without citing specific panels, followed by a description of each panel. For any figures presenting pooled data, the measures should be defined in the figure legends (for example, "Data are represented as mean ± SEM."). Each legend should refer to any supporting items in the Supplemental Information (e.g., "See also Figure S1.").TablesWhen creating a table, please use the Microsoft Word Table function. Tables should include a title, and footnotes and/or legend should be concise. Include tables in the submitted manuscript as a separate section. Tables not created with the Microsoft Word table function will need to be revised by the author.When creating tables, please adhere to the following guidelines:Do not submit tables in Excel or PDF format. Do not place an Excel table in a Word document. Format tables with Word's Table function; do not use tabs or spaces to create a table. Do not use line breaks or spaces to separate data within a cell. Use separate cells for all discrete data elements within a table. Number tables as Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, etc., rather than as Table 1a, Table 1b, Table 1c, etc. If bold or italic font is used within a table to indicate some feature of the data, please give an explanation of its usage in the legend. All abbreviations within a table must be defined in the table legend or footnotes. Footnotes should be listed with superscript lowercase letters, beginning with “a.” Footnotes may not be listed with numbers or symbols. Supplemental InformationIn general, Supplemental Information is limited to data and other materials that directly support the main conclusions of a paper but cannot be included in the main paper for reasons such as space or file format restrictions. Supplemental Information should not be used to present data that are preliminary or that conceptually go beyond the main point of the paper.Before submitting your supplemental materials, please refer to our complete instructions in the Supplemental Information guidelines. This page also contains information on submitting movie and other multimedia files.Figures and Graphical AbstractsDigital figure files submitted through Editorial Manager must conform to our digital figure guidelines or authors will be asked to revise them.If you have any questions about digital files, please contact Jackie Doyle, Managing Editor of Current Biology, [email protected]. Graphical AbstractA graphical abstract should allow readers to quickly gain an understanding of the main take-home message of the paper and is intended to encourage browsing, promote interdisciplinary scholarship, and help readers identify more quickly which papers are most relevant to their research interests. Examples of this feature can be seen in the online version of articles published in Cell from January 2010 onwards. Graphical abstracts may be submitted at any stage up to acceptance for publication (it is not necessary to provide a graphical abstract for a new submission). Graphical abstracts can be uploaded in Editorial Manager by selecting "Graphical Abstract" when uploading files. Refer to our digital figure guidelines for graphical abstract preparation details.

BROOKLYN, NY, July 18, 2017 -- Authorea, the collaborative document editor for researchers, today announced a partnership and direct submission agreement with bioRxiv, the leading preprint server for biological research. The agreement enables researchers writing documents on Authorea to submit preprints directly to bioRxiv with one-click.Josh Nicholson, Chief Research Officer at Authorea says: "bioRxiv is having a tremendous impact in the life sciences. We're excited to work with bioRxiv and their highly engaged community to offer more powerful preprinting capabilities for authors. Authorea's mission is to accelerate scientific discovery by making tools that help researchers write and disseminate their work. bioRxiv is an important partner in this pursuit. "bioRxiv, a non-profit service of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory funded in part by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative,  has emerged as the go-to place for life scientists to preprint scholarly research. Today, hundreds of preprints a month are posted, the rate of submission is rising rapidly, and the service now contains more than 11,000 preprints. As life-scientist support swells dramatically, bioRxiv will demonstrate that preprinting in the life sciences is critical to advance the body of research faster than could otherwise be done.Richard Sever, co-founder of bioRxiv, says: "bioRxiv's goal is to speed up research by allowing authors to share work as quickly and easily as possible. Authorea has created a great, next-generation authoring tool for scientists, and we're delighted to integrate with them to allow direct submission. Hopefully this is just the first step in a partnership that will make writing, sharing and discovering papers easier."You can learn more about directly submitting to bioRxiv here.

Some research findings have permeated all parts of our culture -- so much so that we often take the actual ideas and access to them for granted. Would you believe that Einstein's "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" remains behind a paywall, despite being more than 100 years old? Here we show 10 famous papers that have achieved a similar "rockstar" status in the public imagination yet are still subject to paywalls. At Authorea, we believe that open communication is the key to advancing research. We're working every day to make it possible for researchers to have full control over their work and its dissemination. 

Since 1988, according to Scopus, there have been 48,238,173 documents published by an estimated 100M+ authors.  Most of these papers are written by lifelong academics and professional researchers -- however, occasionally somebody who spends more of their time in the public eye than in the lab makes a splash and publishes a piece of original research. In this post we highlight 10 publications with nontraditional authors.1. Bringing Impressionism to Life with Neural Style Transfer in Come SwimAuthor: Kristen Stewart (Actress).Citation: \cite{Josh_2017}.Citation count: 0

Title PageAbbreviated title (50 character max): SfN Mock ArticleAuthor Names and Affiliations:  Pete D. Nicholson\(^1\), Alberto Pepe\(^1\)\(^1\): Authorea, Brooklyn, NY 11249Number of pages: 6Number of figures: 2Number of WordsAbstract: 147Introduction: 27Discussion: 504Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no competing financial interests.Acknowledgements: None

AbstractPreprints are widely acknowledged to be beneficial to the research community. However, the career implications of an author preprinting their work are unclear. Here we discuss the implications of researchers preprinting their work in terms of precedence, visibility and citation impact, and manuscript editing. In short, we show that researchers that preprint their work have a citation boost ranging from 83% to 269% and that preprints can in practice improve your manuscript and that can limit "scooping."What are preprints?Preprints are publication-ready research articles that have yet to undergo peer review and be formally published. They are free, openly accessible, and widely reusable under permissive copyright licenses.  They accelerate research communication by putting dissemination under researcher control. While preprints are widely viewed as beneficial for research and are the norm in certain disciplines like physics, math, computer science, and statistics, preprinting is relatively new in other disciplines, like the life sciences, psychology, sociology and others.  In these fields - that are new to preprints - questions and confusion can arise around preprinting, potentially hampering their uptake and utility.The benefits of preprintingBelow we highlight the benefits of preprinting your work at the individual level in an effort to encourage researchers to take control of their research. This article aims to show that preprinting is not just good for the community, but also good for the individual scientist, as outlined in "The selfish scientist’s guide to preprint posting" \cite{Kriegeskorte}.Preprints allow researchers to claim precedence on a discoveryWith funding rates at an all-time historic low (see figure \ref{849950}) researchers are hyper-competitive in many aspects of their careers. This competition, while good to an extent, can severely limit data sharing and open discussion, two practices necessary for the advancement of research.  One particular fear of researchers is that they might be "scooped," (ie their discovery is shared by someone else first).  

Authorea was founded with the mission of improving how researchers write and publish their findings. We created a platform that allows researchers to write across formats, to automatically add and format citations from over 86,594,377 scholarly documents, to directly submit to a growing list of leading journals, and to collaborate easily across continents and disciplines with superior version control.  We built Authorea to be the most powerful editor for researchers because we believe that research is fundamentally important in all aspects of life.  Today, we're happy to announce our latest addition to the Authorea toolset: the ability for researchers assign a digital object identifier (DOI) to their Authorea documents.  With this release, you can now write, cite, host data, and preprint on Authorea.What is a preprint?Preprints are publication-ready research papers that are made public before peer review and formal publication. Preprints are designed to address the speed of scientific communication, the accessibility of knowledge and the existing tendency to report mostly positive results.  Preprints have a long history in research dissemination and are part of the story about how the web was created. They have long been used in physics and math with nearly 10,000 preprints posted per month at ar\(\chi\)iv and are starting to gain rapid adoption in other disciplines like the life sciences.  In fact, the growth of preprints in other disciplines was named one of Science's events that shaped 2016.

CAMBRIDGE, UK, Friday, January 13, 2017 -- Authorea, the leading online editor for writing and publishing research documents, is integrating eLife into its submission system to give authors more options for direct submission to journals.eLife, the non-profit initiative backed by leading research funding organizations and led by scientists, operates a platform for research communication that recognizes and encourages responsible practices in science. eLife is now working with Authorea to allow authors to write and submit research directly to the journal as quickly and easily as possible.eLife’s partnership with Authorea aims to reduce the burden of submission on authors. A new document editor for researchers, Authorea makes it easy to write research documents and to host these online or submit them to journals for publication.Authorea gives authors the ability to write in multiple markup languages and host documents directly as standalone preprints. There are also hundreds of export styles for these documents, and Authorea’s recent integration with EJournalPress (EJPress) provides a direct link to eLife, simplifying the journal submission process.Josh Nicholson, Chief Research Officer at Authorea, says: "We're excited to partner with eLife, a major innovator in research publishing. eLife is an ideal submission destination for the tens of thousands of researchers who use Authorea to write groundbreaking research, and we look forward to partnering with eLife to help scientists gain great exposure for their discoveries."Melissa Harrison, Head of Production Operations at eLife, adds: “We’re delighted to be working with Authorea to make the submission process easier for authors. We hope to see this and other partnerships continue over the coming months, so that we can provide our authors with the best possible writing and publishing tools available to them.”For more information, please contact:Emily Packer, Press Officer, [email protected] 855373Adyam Ghebre, Outreach, [email protected]+1 (646) 598-9285About eLifeeLife is a unique collaboration between the funders and practitioners of research to improve the way important research is selected, presented, and shared. eLife publishes outstanding works across the life sciences and biomedicine -- from basic biological research to applied, translational, and clinical studies. All papers are selected by active scientists in the research community. Responses are consolidated by the Reviewing Editor into a single, clear set of instructions for authors, removing the need for laborious cycles of revision and allowing authors to publish their findings quickly. eLife is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, and the Wellcome Trust. Learn more at elifesciences.org.About AuthoreaAuthorea is the online document editor for research and the place where scientific collaboration happens. Authorea is trusted worldwide by leading researchers writing and publishing content in every discipline, from astrophysics to zoology. The online document editor supports a wide range of markup languages and scientific integrations, including the most popular citation management, graphing, and visualization plugins. Authorea is on a mission to accelerate science through a superior web-based research-writing platform that delivers powerful tools and capabilities to researchers.

BROOKLYN, NY, March 20, 2017 – Authorea, the online collaborative document editor for researchers, has partnered with Rockefeller University Press (RUP), a leading publisher in the life sciences, to offer better collaboration and submission options for scientists. With this partnership, researchers writing on Authorea can submit directly to The Journal of Cell Biology, The Journal of Experimental Medicine, or The Journal of General Physiology with one-click submission.Authorea has integrated with a growing list of journals in the past year as it pushes to become the one-stop shop for researchers to write collaborative work and disseminate it widely. Researchers writing on Authorea can write in multiple markup languages (including rich text, Markdown, and LaTeX), can easily search, insert, and format citations, as well as automatically format their manuscripts for submission to leading publishers like RUP.The Rockefeller University Press provides scientists and the public with peer-reviewed results of groundbreaking research and vital news and information they can trust. With a strong commitment to quality and integrity, RUP strives to publish excellent science using the latest technologies. It carries out rigorous and fair peer-review, applying the highest standards of novelty, mechanistic insight, data integrity, and general interest. All three journals are led by active scientists in partnership with professional editors, ensuring that RUP represents the communities it serves.Rob O’Donnell, Director of Publishing Technologies at RUP, says: “RUP journals have allowed format-neutral submission for years, making the process fast and efficient for authors. We are happy to integrate with Authorea, who take that efficiency one step further by allowing authors to submit to JCB, JEM, or JGP directly from the authoring tool.”Josh Nicholson, Chief Research Officer at Authorea, says: “We want to make research more robust, open, and impactful. Rockefeller University Press publishes some of the most important journals and research in the world and we’re happy to partner with them to make the writing, submission, and ultimately publication process easier for researchers.”The partnership makes formatting and submitting extremely simple for researchers so that they spend less time formatting and more time on their essential work. With this integration,Press ContactAdyam Ghebre, Outreach, Authorea+1 (646) 598-9285About AuthoreaAuthorea is the online document editor for research and the place where scientific collaboration happens. Authorea is trusted worldwide by leading researchers writing and publishing content in every discipline, from astrophysics to zoology. The online document editor supports a wide range of markup languages and scientific integrations, including the most popular citation management, graphing, and visualization plugins. Authorea is on a mission to accelerate science through a superior web-based research-writing platform that delivers powerful tools and capabilities to researchers.

The current crisis of veracity in biomedical research is enabled by the lack of publicly accessible information on whether the reported scientific claims are valid. One approach to solve this problem is to replicate previous studies by specialized reproducibility centers. However, this approach is costly or unaffordable and raises a number of yet to be resolved concerns that question its effectiveness and validity. We propose to use an approach that yields a simple numerical measure of veracity, the R-factor, by summarizing the outcomes of already published studies that have attempted to test a claim. The R-factor of an investigator, a journal, or an institution would be the average of the R-factors of the claims they reported. We illustrate this approach using three studies recently tested by a replication initiative, compare the results, and discuss how using the R-factor can help improve the veracity of scientific research.

The 2016 Olympics have captivated the world -- records are breaking, medal counts are climbing, and nationalism is roaring! It's all very exciting. It should get even more exciting in Tokyo in four years time at the 2020 games when several new sports are scheduled to be introduced, including surfing, skateboarding, and... research! Okay, research definitely won't be included, but what if it were? How would each country fare? Here we look at research output vs. Olympic prowess on a per-country basis.