Christos Petrou analyzes the potential publishing impacts of new Chinese policies on research assessment.
Dr. Jie Xu from the Wuhan University of China offers a view of how Chinese researchers are reacting and are likely to alter their behavior in response to new policies governing research evaluation.
A new set of policies mark an effort to largely reform the research and higher education evaluation systems in China. The potential impact on the STM publishing sector is examined.
Rob Johnson of Research Consulting and Vanessa Proudman of SPARC Europe look at a recent survey of of European funders to explore what’s being done to drive change in scholarly communication, and argue that funders’ open policies could be backed up more by funders’ own practices.
One way or another, the #scholcomm community is going to choose either a diversity of publishing models or a monoculture, because it can’t have both. How will this choice be made, and by whom?
Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.
An interview with Bhushan Patwardhan, Vice Chairman of India’s University Grants Commission, discussing strategies that are being employed to combat predatory publishing.
Typography is storytelling, and can be used to reveal truths or create myths. Learn more on how this works from Sarah Hyndman.
Here are some takeaways from last week’s Academic Publishing in Europe meeting, from Chefs who were there (either physically or virtually).
While some talk about global science, China’s skyrocketing investment in its scientific sector is causing real anxiety for Europe.
Building a brain trust is a key part of the tasks of a CEO, as some difficult questions require the guidance and reflection of trusted advisors.
Bangladesh continues to make progress toward its vision of growth with a digital agenda, but good data and collaboration with researchers is important to ensure that the process is effective.
How many articles from predatory journals are being cited in the legitimate (especially medical) literature? Some disturbing findings.
Given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.