Publishing the 23andMe Way, Part Two: The New Data Publishing Business
23andMe presents an interesting model for STM publishers on how to enter a new and lucrative market for data publishing.
Portable Peer Review RIP
After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review.
Why Books Will Always Matter
An inspirational talk by the National Book Foundation’s Lisa Lucas.
New Assessment Process Boosts Credibility of Developing-world Journals
New detailed assessments of journals in the Global South will provide reassurance to authors and readers and guide editors on how to improve their journals.
Welcoming a New Chef in the Kitchen: Siân Harris
I’m delighted to announce the addition of a new voice in The Scholarly Kitchen, Siân Harris. Siân is the Publications and Engagement Manager at INASP, an international development organization that supports the production, sharing and use of research and knowledge […]
Science, Publishing and Government Bills: Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR)
Scholarly publishers are already doing much to make government funded research as free as possible as soon as it is published. Why do we need a law to enact what is already taking shape? Robert Harington suggests it comes down to politics.
Publishing the 23andMe Way, Part One: Building the Database
The genetics testing copany 23andme presents an interesting example of a new kind of data publishing.
Guest Post — When Metrics and Politics Collide: Reflections on Peer Review, the JIF and Our Current Political Moment
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
Seven Things I Learned at the Eighth International Peer Review Congress
To round out Peer Review Week 2017, here’s a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year’s Peer Review Congress, held every four years.
Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future
Continuing our Peer Review Week celebrations, we asked representatives from three very different organizations – the American Historical Association, BioMed Central and The Royal Society – to share their thoughts on the evolution of peer review for journals from its beginnings through the present and into the future.
Do We Need A Self-Citation Index?
Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.
Does Born-Digital Mean Rethinking Peer Review?
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
Peer Review in a World of “Alternative Facts”
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
Ask The Chefs: Should Peer Review Change?
In anticipation of Peer Review Week, we’ve asked the Chefs their opinions on if and how peer review might change. Come tell us yours!
A Confusion of Journals — What Is PubMed Now?
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.