Guest Post – Publishing Fast or Slow: How Speed Varies for Similar Journals
Christos Petrou looks at the factors that go into determining a journal’s turnaround times, and how we can help authors make better-informed choices.
Christos Petrou looks at the factors that go into determining a journal’s turnaround times, and how we can help authors make better-informed choices.
Robert Harington talks to Dr. Amy Brand of MIT Press, in this series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and for-profit sectors of our industry.
A list of the most influential scientists suffers from anomalies and inaccuracies.
As scholarly journal editorial practices are the subject of growing scrutiny, publishers should explore “quality signals” systemically derived from researcher identity and metadata associated with identity.
How can we optimize the peer review process, and what role should AI play?
Open Café, a new listserv dedicated to the free and open discussion of open scholarship has been met with enthusiasm by the scholarly communication community.
Attribution has many virtues, but among them it can make visible the vast infrastructure of research for a public largely unaware or unconcerned with how much hard-won knowledge, including creative endeavor, that research has facilitated.
Should the authors’ institution make decisions regarding authorship disputes on a paper?
How do we define, track, and measure trust in scholarly publishing?
Balancing the anxiety and the excitement over the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scholarly publishing.
As we contemplate a pause during the holiday season, we must ask ourselves: Isn’t the researcher’s overall well-being as crucial as the research itself?
Is the scholar-to-scholar exchange found in book reviews still of value to the community? There is concern over their decline.
We asked the Chefs to weigh in with their thoughts on the new “Towards Responsible Publishing” manifesto from cOAlition S.
The traditional “normal” in academia often lacks the richness and dynamism required for robust intellectual discourse and innovation. How can we cultivate a “personalized normal” that celebrates the uniqueness of researchers and empowers them to communicate their discoveries innovatively?
A mixed bag post from us — can you separate out the significance of research results from their validity? What will the collapse of the Humanities mean for scholarly publishing writ large? And a new draft set of recommended practices for communicating retractions, removals, and expressions of concern.