Despite the near consensus about the popularity (or lack thereof) of commenting on academic articles, there is surprisingly little publicly available data relating to commenting rates. To address this, a team of academics from the Universities of Sheffield and Loughborough have recently published research into article commenting on PLOS journals. Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield and Peter Willett report here on their findings.
Two years after its initial entry into the marketplace, Cabell’s Blacklist has matured into a carefully crafted and highly useful directory of predatory and deceptive journals.
Invisible to most readers of scholarly content is the editing process. In this post, Angela Cochran and Karin Wulf explore the role and processes for journal editors from two very different disciplines– History and Civil Engineering.
Jessica Polka looks at current technological capabilities for new innovations in peer review.
Data Availability Statements are a powerful tool in promoting data sharing, but what does it take to include them in a journal workflow?
Famed detective Sherlock Holmes does his best to help his friend Dr. Watson figure out how best to comply with the requirements of Plan S.
Plan S seems to favor larger, commercial publishers over smaller, independent, not-for-profit publishers. Is this an acceptable sacrifice or are societies, and not-for-profit publishing, worth preserving?
Code Ocean’s Pierre Montagano talks about expanding our concept of what the research article can offer.
TRANSPOSE is a new crowdsourced resource that seeks to reduce the uncertainty of journal policies by providing a clear, structured summary in one place.
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.
In this interview Robert Harington asks Melinda Baldwin to talk about her recent article in Isis, entitled “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States”, and to provide some more personal views on peer review topics of the moment.
Editors commonly fear that data policies will hurt submissions, but data from 12 evolution and ecology journals say otherwise.
Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. The focus is currently on APCs, but submission fees are overall cheaper for authors, particularly at highly selective journals, and thus warrant serious consideration.
A Baker’s Dozen TSK posts that address issues central to diversity, the theme of Peer Review Week 2018. We hope these will get your reading, thinking and commenting!
We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them