We revisit our analysis of how adopting a strict data policy affects journal submissions and find that the effects depend a lot on Impact Factor trends
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
So much change has happened in the last few months. What changes do you think will “stick” in scholarly publishing?
From binge watching, binge listening, reconnecting with neighbors and old friends, Zoom happy hours or Zoom family game nights, to cooking, exercising, and gardening, we’re all figuring out how to get through our days. What’s your strategy? Part 1 today, Part 2 tomorrow.
Giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits
Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
An awareness of how neurodiverse people in academia and scholarly publishing perceive the world can improve working relationships and help them achieve their potential.
Publishers and research funders both want open data, but active collaboration on policy is a rarity. The people behind a new (collaborative) data policy at the Belmont Forum share their experiences.
Editors commonly fear that data policies will hurt submissions, but data from 12 evolution and ecology journals say otherwise.
Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. The focus is currently on APCs, but submission fees are overall cheaper for authors, particularly at highly selective journals, and thus warrant serious consideration.