Guest Post — Advancing Accessibility in Scholarly Publishing: Fostering Empathy
Part one of a three-part series aims to discuss the topic of advancing accessibility within scholarly communication with the focus of digital accessibility.
Part one of a three-part series aims to discuss the topic of advancing accessibility within scholarly communication with the focus of digital accessibility.
Danny Kingsley suggests that research integrity begins with the training researchers receive at university. Achieving Open Research and increasing reproducibility requires systematic research training that focuses specifically on research practice.
A compilation of links and a video to incisive analyses of ChatGPT and what it means for the future.
Mark Huskisson looks at the open source tools enabling a world of scholarly communication that is more broadly global, diverse, and inclusive than is perhaps recognized.
There are still barriers and hesitations around open research practices. Erika Pastrana and Simon Adar suggest that publishers and technology platforms can better support authors and drive uptake.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
Why are national PID strategies having a moment, and why should you care? Find out in today’s post by Alice Meadows.
Although Google Scholar claims to not use DOI metadata in its search index, a recent study finds that books with DOIs are generally more discoverable than those without DOIs.
The STM Integrity Hub will include software to detect image manipulation and duplication. It is important that the effectiveness of the software be evaluated in a transparent process.
Observations on reproducibility and research integrity from London STM Week
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz discusses PLOS’s Open Science Indicators initiatives and shares initial results.
Research bureaucracy and administrative burden has become so overpowering that many researchers are reporting that they don’t have time to do any research anymore. Phill Jones argues that technology in the form of PIDs will go a long way to fixing this.
Funder guidance is too vague when it comes to identifiers and metadata. It needs to get specific to be effective.
Eleven years after the Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) launched, I wonder: How are ODI conformance statements helping to drive transparency and cross-sector improvements to web-scale library discovery services?
Another “mixed bag” post from us — Is it time to leave Twitter? How can we incentivize journals and authors to take up open science practices? What is “involution” and is DEIA the solution?