Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
A recap of a recent SSP webinar on artificial intelligence (AI) and scholarly publishing. How can this set of technologies help or harm scholarly publishing, and what are some current trends? What are the risks of AI, and what should we look out for?
GitHub and Microsoft are being sued for using open source software without creator attribution in alleged violation of open licensing requirements. What implications does this have for the scholarly literature and Creative Commons licenses?
Avi Staiman discusses how meaningful engagement with authors early in the research process can yield significant benefits to publishers and journals.
The beginning of the holiday season means it’s time for our annual list of our favorite books read (and other cultural creations experienced) during the year. Part 1 today.
Christos Petrou analyzes changes in the speed of publication of research articles over the last ten years.
FORCE11 and COPE release recommendations on data publishing ethics for researchers, publishers, and editors.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson reflect on the OSTP’s response to their interview questions, and on some implications of those responses and of the memo itself.
Robert Harington considers whether open and public access models, as they have emerged so far, are delivering us to a more inequitable publishing future as we rush towards openness.
A look back at a 2015 post about approaches to improve funder policy compliance. Many of the same problems exist now as did then — are the same collaborative solutions likely to happen?
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?