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.
Could scholarly publishers’ skills and capacity be re-positioned to serve researchers at earlier stages in the research process, “upstream” of publication? Charlie Rapple shares findings from a survey of the communications needs of almost 10,000 researchers.
If publishers truly are service providers, then better care should be taken in setting up journal submission guidelines and formats. This guest post by Mriganka Awati shares author feedback on the frustrations with the current submission processes and offers solutions for consideration.
The systems of research and scholarly communication contain a lot of redundancy. This is a good thing.
The second of two posts on the roles of e-books in scholarly publishing, focused on how e-books fit into the mission and the business model of university presses and what that might mean for authors and readers.
Bringing the authority of the academy to a broad audience should be second only to original research itself, especially if the research community hopes to retain or even increase the public’s support for the esoteric work that goes on behind the laboratory walls.
The creator of an emoji translation of “Moby Dick” takes a look at the linguistic role that they serve.
Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? This post by Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and offers suggestions for closing the gap.
What could motivate researchers to get involved in global evidence-informed policy influencing processes such as the one led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and how can we ensure diversity of researchers and research sources?
So does Sci-Hub lead libraries to cancel journals, or doesn’t it? Maybe the answer isn’t a simple yes or no.
Shaun Khoo questions whether authors will exercise their market power to put downward pressure on article processing charges.
High School and Undergrad student conduct research all the time, and yet student run journals can come and go. Today’s guest post highlights the STEM Fellowship, which provides a sustainable support structure for student lead journals as well as challenges to inspire research outside the box.
For “University Publishing” to succeed by any measure, however, it is going to have to attract a lot of authors.
Last week’s ACRL and STM conferences demonstrated that libraries and publishers have a renewed desire to understand the researcher experience and embrace the scholarly information practices that will define our future.
Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution “Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.”