The Scholarly Kitchen
Manuscript
Do Uninteresting Papers Really Need Peer Review?
Do papers reporting null results or confirmational results need to go through the same process as papers reporting significant and novel results? Or do they require only passing a perfunctory editorial review? Continue reading
Copyright Transfer As a Click-through – It’s So Easy to Sign Away Your Rights
Click-through agreements are efficient for publishers and software companies to offer, but is it right for this efficiency to cloud the rights picture? Can’t we create systems that are slightly more subtle and customized? Continue reading
Mapping the Flow of Rejected Manuscripts
A study of the flow of manuscript submissions reveals a highly structured and efficient network of scientific journals where peer-review plays a critical role in the improvement and slotting of papers. Continue reading
The Journal of Universal Rejection, and Suggestions for Improving It
While the JofUR may represent a culmination of many trends in publishing, there’s still room for improvement. Continue reading
Does Rejecting Papers Amount to More Than Just a Transaction Cost?
The expenses publishers incur rejecting papers and book proposals are about more than filtering. 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.
