Is there a gender gap in scholarly research? Is it widening or closing? Which countries are closest to equality and which are lagging behind? Elsevier’s new report on the gender gap in global research, published to coincide with International Women’s Day, provides some answers.
With scholarship under threat on both sides of the Atlantic, here are some practical tools all of us can use as we stand up for science and build trust in scholarly communications through improving transparency, rigor and peer review.
PIDapalooza, the first ever festival of persistent identifiers, set out not only to bring together the creators and users of PIDs, but also to make PIDs cool. Did it succeed? Find out in this report on the event from Alice Meadows and Phill Jones
We know that women are under-represented at the most senior levels of scholarly publishing, but is there also a male/female pay gap at the top? This analysis of publicly available data from 46 US non-profit organizations provides some answers, as well as showing the need for more work on this important topic.
Learn how and why different organizations are recognizing the work of their reviewers in this video to celebrate the theme of Peer Review Week 2016 — #RecognizeReview.
Today’s contribution to Peer Review Week 2016 is an interview with Maryann Martone of Hypothes.is, which examines the important — but often overlooked — role of annotation in peer review.
Think persistent identifiers are a bit boring? Think again! PIDapalooza, the first open festival of persistent identifiers, aims to challenge that view. Find out more, including how you can get involved.
What should publishers know about researchers and their work? Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf follow up a post earlier this year about “Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know about Scholarly Publishing.”
If you haven’t already heard of the Collaborative Knowledge Foundation (CKF or Coko for short), chances are you soon will. Find out more in this interview with co-founder Kristen Ratan.
Peer Review Week is back! After a successful first year, planning for Peer Review Week 2016 is in full swing. This post will give you an outline of the week focusing on Recognition for Review.
The gender disparity at the top of scholarly publishing – and scholarly communications – is well documented. A recent article in Learned Publishing, discussed during an informal panel session at this year’s SSP conference, shows that not only are women under-represented at the top of our organizations, but also as speakers at our industry conferences. At seven major meetings in 2015, men represented on average over 60% of speakers and nearly two thirds of keynotes, and all male panels prevailed.
After many and long conversations among colleagues within and beyond the Scholarly Kitchen
about what researchers need to know about scholarly publishing, Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf compiled a list of what we think to be the most urgent issues.
Whether or not you attended this years APE (Academic Publishing in Europe) conference yourself, find out what three of the Scholarly Kitchen chefs thought of the meeting – our overall impressions and key take-home messages.
A group of eight publishers today announced that, during 2016, they will begin requiring authors to use an ORCID identifier (iD) during the publication process. The first to do so is The Royal Society, which has introduced this requirement beginning January 1, 2016. In this interview, their Publishing Director, Stuart Taylor, explains why.
Last week ORCID published the results of its first major survey. Around 6,000 respondents globally – ORCID record holders and non record holders – provided feedback on their perceptions and understanding of ORCID. Find out what they said…