Kent Anderson looks at an innovative approach to peer review that has expanded, changed review approaches, and impressed authors.
Mark Edington suggests that the scholarly communications community needs clear definitions and standards for how peer review is performed, and that transparent reporting on peer review should be a standard part of a publication.
Google’s journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
Robert Harington suggests that publishers need to do more for researchers to help authors, and to help reviewers understand their role as a reviewer and be recognized for their work. We need to tackle implicit bias in peer review. We need to focus on our “North Star”
A new kind of predator is taking advantage of unsuspecting authors. In this post, Angela Cochran discusses the forged acceptance letters received and what publishers can do to help authors avoid this costly and embarrassing pitfall.
The buzz around blockchain is mounting. But does it fit with scholarly publishing’s incentives and practices?
Love it or loathe, blockchain is making the headlines everywhere! But what exactly is it? Does it really have a role to play in scholarly communications? If so, what and how? In this interview, Joris van Rossum (Digital Science) and Martijn Roelandse (Springer Nature) answer these questions and more.
Starting today, anyone who visits the online retailer Amazon will soon be able to review manuscripts, just like pens, sneakers, and toiletry products.
A flawed article claiming that manuscripts don’t change much between being preprints and published articles somehow makes it through peer review unchanged.
Preprints are early drafts of a paper before it has gone through peer review. Should non-peer reviewed material be included in published article reference lists? If so, how can we make that clear to readers?
Why would a for-profit, VC funded publisher celebrate by committing itself to a full year’s worth of additional expenses with no additional revenue?
Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Silicon Valley’s advertising model has been exploited, and free information’s price is more apparent. Will we be saved by subscription model innovations?
A conference at the British Library provides ample evidence of the breadth of the university press sector and the absolute necessity of a clear institutional mission.
By incorporating post-publication validation badges into preprints, bioRxiv begins to transform itself from a preprint server into a publishing platform.