Kent Anderson looks at an innovative approach to peer review that has expanded, changed review approaches, and impressed authors.
As we learn more on an almost daily basis about the growing power and influence of social media and Facebook in particular, Alison Mudditt spoke recently with Siva Vaidhyanathan about the intricate relationship between media and democracy, and the critical role that cultural institutions – including scholarship, publishers and libraries – need to play in countering this pernicious hold on our attention.
Google’s journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
The buzz around blockchain is mounting. But does it fit with scholarly publishing’s incentives and practices?
Preprints are early drafts of a paper before it has gone through peer review. Should non-peer reviewed material be included in published article reference lists? If so, how can we make that clear to readers?
We continue to battle the tidal wave of data with a bucket brigade of individual privacy settings. Maybe it’s time to pause and consider a state-level solution, ala Estonia.
By incorporating post-publication validation badges into preprints, bioRxiv begins to transform itself from a preprint server into a publishing platform.
Business models that exploit vulnerabilities are unfair. Can a model that aligns producer and consumers help fix the Internet?
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?
Would an AI-driven peer review system improve objectivity? Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction explains the biases and subjectivity inherent in algorithms.
A new book explores how biases and broken systems get built into technology products and platforms.
2017 may have been a watershed year for the Internet and its future. What did we learn? And what factors may shape 2018?
The Altmetric “flower” is an icon, and the annual Top 100 list a much-anticipated event. But is the flower really a stalk?
The NIH is warning its funded authors against publishing in predatory journals, and the FTC has secured a preliminary injunction against OMICS for alleged predatory publishing practices. Will this mark a turning point in the fight against fraudulent scholarly publishing?
New changes at COPE seem to move the organization further away from standards and closer to suggested behavior. At the same time, a new policy on member expulsions was announced. Is it clear exactly what members are agreeing to?