The Scholarly Kitchen
Peer Review
Are We In a Rut? Explaining the Increasing Homogenization of Scholarly and Scientific Publishing
The Internet promised a revolution, but we may have only deepened our rut as a number of factors have combined to constrain innovation and change our customer focus. Continue reading
The Limits of Crowdsourcing in the Scientific Disciplines
Social networking and crowdsourcing have attributes that may make them both incompatible with the goals and process of science. Can we accept that? Continue reading
Convenience versus Community — Is a Deeper Question Hiding Behind the Façade of the Access Debates?
While the access debates have dominated, another debate has been emerging, one that perhaps has greater significance in the long run. Continue reading
Seeking Acceptance at F1000 Research — Early Problems With Identity and Outsourced Authority
Articles are published before they’re reviewed; doubts about a paper are viewed as a positive status; papers only need to contain “science;” review and revision can continue forever; and PubMed Central is their certifying entity. Welcome to the world of F1000 Research. Continue reading
More Review Costs More — The Dynamics of a Complex and Varied Expense for Journals
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review. Continue reading
How Rigorous Is the Post-publication Review Process at F1000 Research?
Comparing the length of post-publication peer reviews in F1000 Research to those done pre-publication in four major medical journals shows authors are less likely to receive constructive or substantial criticism with F1000 Research reviews, despite a highly academic reviewer pool. Continue reading
Open Access — Idealism and Realism Remain Difficult to Reconcile, Survey Says
A survey of multiple scientific and academic domains about open access publishing provides an interesting snapshot, but fails to provide much actionable data as it conflates too many areas into one. Continue reading
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
Rewarding Reviewers: Money, Prestige, or Some of Both?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in! Continue reading
Validation vs. Filtration and Designation — Are We Mismarketing the Core Strengths of Peer Review?
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science. 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.
