Editorial Spoofing in the Age of Electronic Peer-Review
In a story of the modern age of fraud, spoofers find their way into peer-review rosters, reviewing their own papers or those of their friends/competitors.
In a story of the modern age of fraud, spoofers find their way into peer-review rosters, reviewing their own papers or those of their friends/competitors.
Creating a centralized database for disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is an easy sell. Deciding who is responsible and accountable for its funding and support is a much harder problem.
Funders — corporate, governmental, and philanthropic — have different priorities, yet they are now reaching into scientific publishing, wearing OA as a glove that fits. This post explores the problems this is creating and might create if allowed to perpetuate.
In this first part of a three-part series, the intrusion of governments into scientific publishing is contemplated — its causes, current state, and possible effects.
There is an unstated theory of the e-book, which assumes that a book consists only of its text and can be manipulated without regard to the nature and circumstances of its creation. This is only one theory of many, but it is now the prevailing one.
Putting metrics and altmetrics into perspective can help us separate secondary signals from primary signals, and may lead to a greater appreciation of alternatives to metrics, or alt2metrics.
Why would free content be differentially accessed across versions of it, and across publications? A dive into PLoS data leads to a potentially reassuring answer.
An attempt to entice citations from authors leads to a memorable story for the holidays.
The recently departed WSJ Health Blog taught us all lessons — and this blogger the lesson of standing up for what is clearly a better way of doing things.
Looking closely at nature reveals that our world is a world isolated by its scale, not by its reality. At other scales, other worlds exist.
Open access publishing is a viable option, with gold OA gaining traction. But concerns remain, and funding is uncertain.
eLife clarifies its media policies, adopting the mask of an enlightened approach that actually makes it harder for everyone to generate much attention.
A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?
Publishers have lost ground in the public debate of the role of publishing in scholarly communications. A new strategy is needed, one that emphasizes preemption, cooptation, and innovation.
Funder-sponsored journals raise important conflict of interest questions, and may be fundamentally untenable in an industry that requires independent third-party evaluation of research reports.