Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
Starting today, anyone who visits the online retailer Amazon will soon be able to review manuscripts, just like pens, sneakers, and toiletry products.
Why would a for-profit, VC funded publisher celebrate by committing itself to a full year’s worth of additional expenses with no additional revenue?
By incorporating post-publication validation badges into preprints, bioRxiv begins to transform itself from a preprint server into a publishing platform.
Solving the transfer problem has created a widespread perception that rejecting a manuscript–especially after considerable time and resources have been devoted to its review–is downright wasteful. If it’s publishable, why not publish it?
Predicted to radically consolidate STM journals, the OA megajournal has found a successful niche market. The same can be said for MOOCs.
After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS. However, the trend over the past five years does not look encouraging, and 2017 looks no better.
Like other greying professions, demographic data for ARL libraries warn us of a breaking wave of retirements but may paint an unrealistic picture of what the beach will look like after the surf has settled.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.