The Scholarly Kitchen
incentives
Publish-or-Perish Culture Promotes Scientific Narcissism
Publication rewards productive scientists but has the unintended consequences of isolating scholars, reducing knowledge transfer and steering scientists away from engaging in policy and the press. Continue reading
Are Cash Bonuses the Right Incentive for Science Authors?
Rewarding scientists with cash bonuses when they publish in prestigious journals drives up submission rates but has no effect on publication success, a new study reports. Continue reading
Are Peer-Reviewers Overloaded? Or Are Their Incentives Misaligned?
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives. Continue reading
Privatizing Peer Review — The PubCred Proposal
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system? Continue reading
When Solutions Take On a Life of Their Own
What happens when a proposed solution for a problem becomes an end unto itself? Is peer review really more important than research itself? Continue reading
The Stick and the Carrot: Why Direct Incentives in Science are Dangerous
Reputation — fragile, cumulative, and indirect — is the reward of science. Direct compensation to motivate specific behaviors is a dangerous proposal. Continue reading
Authors
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
......................................
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
