Let Authors Choose How to Pay for Peer Review and Publication
Giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits
Two New Initiatives at eLife To Start the Eisen Era
Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
A Hidden Diversity in Scholarly Publishing
An awareness of how neurodiverse people in academia and scholarly publishing perceive the world can improve working relationships and help them achieve their potential.
Connecting Funder and Publisher Data Sharing Policies: An Interview with e-Infrastructures Group at the Belmont Forum
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.
Does Adopting a Strict Data Sharing Policy Affect Submissions?
Editors commonly fear that data policies will hurt submissions, but data from 12 evolution and ecology journals say otherwise.
Plan T: Scrap APCs and Fund Open Access with Submission Fees
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.
What’s Up with Data Citations?
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.
Peer Review Fails to Prevent Publication of Paper with Unsupported Claims About Peer Review
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don’t change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
A Curious Blindness Among Peer Review Initiatives
Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Chefs’ Selections: The Best Books Read During 2017 Part 1
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.
Is There a Business Case for Open Data?
Open data is gaining ground, but is there a revenue stream that would help journals recover the costs of gathering, reviewing and publishing data?
How Rigorous Is the Post-publication Review Process at F1000 Research?
Comparing the length of post-publication peer reviews in F1000 Research to those done pre-publication in four major medical journals shows authors are less likely to receive constructive or substantial criticism with F1000 Research reviews, despite a highly academic reviewer pool.
"I Want" Doesn’t Get — Just Recommending Data Archiving Isn’t Nearly as Effective as Requiring It
Data archiving is becoming a new normal for scientific publishing, but a recent study shows you need to do more than just ask for it.
The Referee Who Wasn’t There: The Ghostly Tale of Reviewer 3
The power and identity of Reviewer 3 springs from the shadows to ensnare the unwanted paper. But is it really a powerful spirit? Or just Dad in a mask?
The Famous Grouse — Do Prominent Scientists Have Biased Perceptions of Peer Review?
Conventional wisdom has well-known researchers getting more and more requests for reviews, leading some to suggest the system is broken and about to implode. Yet, when real-world data are analyzed, some surprises emerge.