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.
Missing: data citations. Last seen hanging around with datasets in lots of research articles, but never arrived at Crossref after typesetting. Description: short, with straight black forward slashes and lots of digits. Often wears a DOI hoodie.
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don’t change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
The beginning of the holiday season means it’s time for our annual list of our favorite books read during the year. Part 1 today, Part 2 tomorrow.