Fake News is making headlines as questions about how dubious stories may have influenced the US election. This post explores the damage done to reputable news organizations and what scholarly publishers could learn from the whole thing.
With everyone in a rush to get work published quickly, authors are sometimes torn on what to do when major revisions are requested. The post examines the pros and cons of seeing the process through, or cutting bait mid way.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities. #PeerRevWk16
Launching a new journal is a lot of work. This post looks at the basic “to do” list of logistical details that need to be done to successfully launch a new journal.
A new “papers service” for social science content was recently launched and is capitalizing on concerns over the sale of a long time preprint server by a commercial publisher. While the timing might be right, the set up looks a little hasty.
Angela Cochran talks about the need to sometimes move out of our comfort zones or give others a slight push. Moving out of the “zone” can bring big benefits but also fear of the unknown.
While many of the traditional publishing tasks remain intact, new tasks that are much more technical in nature have changed the skill sets required to be scholarly publishers. As new and developing standards and services such as Funder Identification, ORCID, CHORUS, and more come online, publishers and their vendors must integrate when they would rather innovate. The trick is in realizing where integration allows more innovation.
As digital piracy goes large scale, publishers, libraries, and the open access movement have a lot at stake.
As more funders look to adopt CHORUS for providing public access to works derived from federal funds, a review of the publisher requirements for participating in CHORUS seems timely. This post explores the current state of CHORUS agency adoption and some important new requirements.
Editors are quick to assume that reviewer fatigue is slowing them down; but one journal found that excessive invitations to review was not cited as a major reason why reviewers declined invitations.