The new US policy on access to research publications suggests an acceleration in the shift toward open access. Christos Petrou examines what that would look like in different fields and for different journals.
Today Angela Cochran revisits a post from 2016 on “revise and resubmit” decisions and what it means for authors and editors. Do new peer review models or cascading programs change the use of “revise and resubmit”?
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
Authors need to understand more about producing web documents, particularly accessibility, if they want to forgo traditional publishing.
Rick Anderson revisits a 2020 post: 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?
Revisiting a 2015 post that predicted the dominance of the cascade model of journal portfolio publishing and the increased dominance of the larger existing publishers in an open access market.
To what extent are scholarly publishers and societies actively engaging with early career researchers? Findings from a white paper, and polls at the SSP annual meeting, are shared.
Twitter does not increase citations, a reanalysis of author data shows. Did the authors p-hack their data?
How can publishers ensure that our content and services are found and used by the growing number of Millennials and Generation Z researchers in academia?
When a reputable journal refuses to get involved with a questionable paper, science looks less like a self-correcting enterprise and more like a way to amass media attention.
A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?
A cafe in Japan helps writers overcome their procrastination.
A.J. Boston offers recommendations for how funding agencies and research institutions can better lead the change toward open access.
In a new twist on academic fraud, a company now offers to pay you to write and publish book reviews that will be credited to someone else.
Robert Harington and Melinda Baldwin discuss whether peer review has a role to play in uncovering scientific fraud.