Proposing a model for thinking about the interactions of rigor, cogency, accessibility, significance, openness, and impact in scholarly quality.
Widely available high-quality, up-to-date, complete metadata could significantly speed up the dissemination of scholarly research. Metadata 2020 is working to make this a reality. Learn how and why in this post by Alice Meadows.
A brief review of studies linking social media and article-level performance.
Sharing and evaluating early stage research findings can be challenging, but that’s starting to change. Learn more in this guest post by Sami Benchekroun and Michelle Kuepper of Morressier
In a preview for the SSP’s upcoming pre-conference at the UKSG Meeting, Nicola Poser interviews Rob Johnson about shifting relationship dynamics and imbalances in an open access world.
Last week, the University of California terminated its license with Elsevier. Today, Roger Schonfeld argues that leakage has reduced the value of the big deal — and publisher pricing power — while empowering library negotiators.
There is always a new tool, method, or model, but no organization can do it all. This month we asked the Chefs about methods for prioritizing choices.
What happens when regulations around research funding pit the interests of the laboratory head against those of their students and postdocs?
Despite increasingly sophisticated library automation, the data on books in libraries is often hard to come by.
A look back at the last year in The Scholarly Kitchen.
The separation of powers is as important in academic publishing as it is in government.
Today’s guest post on the importance of ensuring widespread community commitment to data citation is by Brooks Hanson, Daniella Lowenberg, Patricia Cruse, and Helena Cousijn
A public allegation of citation manipulation among 5 journals deserves a public inquiry.
Today’s post features an interview of Elsevier’s chairman Youngsuk (“YS”) Chi, conducted by ITHAKA president Kevin Guthrie during the opening session of ITHAKA’s Next Wave conference. It features discussion and perspective not only about Elsevier itself and its strategic direction, but also about broader changes in scholarly communication and approaches to organizational leadership.
We know that peer review is important and that the hard work of reviewers should be recognized. Yet we still don’t really know how that recognition should work.