Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?
How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Investigation documents rogue editor’s coercion of authors to cite his journal, papers.
Output in PLOS ONE dropped by 6000+ papers in 2016, calling into question the sustainability of PLOS’ business model.
Three companies (Rubriq, Axios Review, and Peerage of Science) have working models for external peer review. Has any one of them found a model for success?
Paying a living wage for reviews could provide postdocs with a temporary career alternative. But it won’t come cheaply and it will likely result in an uncompetitive journal with little chance of success.
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain “dumb luck.”
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper!