Post-Publication Peer-Review Already Exists, Already Has Incentives, and Is Already Robust
A recent exhortation to support post-publication peer-review with awards shines a light on the holes in both ideas.
A recent exhortation to support post-publication peer-review with awards shines a light on the holes in both ideas.
As traffic continues to come in through side doors, what is the function of the home page?
Having trouble getting our email alerts? Please let us know.
The herd of social sharing sites in the sciences is being culled. And one — Mendeley — may be assimilated by Elsevier.
With the NFL playoffs at their peak, what better time to have a little fun at the expense of highly paid players?
In the follow-up to “What Are STM Publishers Doing Wrong?” we explore what STM publishers are doing right. It’s an impressive list.
The first of a two-part series, today we review a long and complicated list of things STM publishers are doing wrong. Tomorrow, we’ll explore the opposite question — what are STM publishers doing right?
F1000 Research has confusing review and publication practices, and doesn’t call itself a journal, yet is now going to be indexed by PubMed — further eroding the PubMed brand.
I forget exactly when I first came across the idea that environmental lead, leftover from decades of leaded gasoline, was a factor in mental acuity, violent tendencies, and potentially crime. It must have been at least 20-25 years ago. Since […]
A new report on institutional information expenditures raises the real possibility that instead of their being a pricing problem, there’s a quantity problem driving expenditures.