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.
Open data is gaining ground, but is there a revenue stream that would help journals recover the costs of gathering, reviewing and publishing data?
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.
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.