Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review
Revisiting a 2015 post to ask whether we are any closer to offering researchers credit for non-research activities?
Beyond Publication — Increasing Opportunities For Recognizing All Research Contributions
Recognizing the many ways that researchers (and others) contribute to science and scholarship has historically been challenging but we now have options, including CRediT and ORCID.
Guest Post — Is It Time to (Finally) Get Serious about Submission Charges?
Journal submission fees would reduce the continuously growing editorial and peer review burdens while allowing for better levels of rigor and oversight. Roy Kaufman makes a case for their adoption.
Guest Post — The Covid Infodemic and the Future of the Communication of Science
ResearchGate’s Joseph DeBruin looks at the balance between speed and uncertainty in scholarly communication, and how technology can facilitate better information travel.
Publishers Invest in Preprints
Major scholarly publishers have made substantial investments in preprints in recent years, integrating preprint deposit into manuscript submission workflows.
What Will We Learn About Scholarly Publishing as a Result of COVID-19?
In the coming months and years, we will have an opportunity to study the affects of the COVID pandemic on scholarly publishing. Angela Cochran explores questions related to the participation of women in scholarship, funding changes, resource issues, and the future of research enterprises.
In Peer Review Week We Trust
Five months to go till the sixth annual Peer Review Week, a global celebration of the critical role peer review plays in scholarly communications. This year’s theme is trust — learn more in this post by Alice Meadows
Guest Post — Open Peer Review in the Humanities
Open peer review hasn’t caught on in the humanities, but it has been part of ongoing experiments in humanities publishing. As the American Historical Review tries open review, what lessons can we take from previous experiments?
Reforming Research Assessment: A Tough Nut to Crack
Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.
Let Authors Choose How to Pay for Peer Review and Publication
Giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits
Peer Review Week — the Podcast and the Videos!
We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round!
Guest Post — A Perspective from the Peer Review Congress
From the Peer Review Congress, what’s changed and what’s about to change? John Sack conducts an interview with the Executive Director and Co-Director of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
Quality in Peer Review: An Interview with Tracey Brown, Sense about Science
Continuing our celebration of Peer Review Week 2019, today Alice Meadows interviews Tracey Brown, OBE, Director of Sense about Science, which has been involved in Peer Review Week from the start.
How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.
Quality is Multi-Dimensional: How Many Ways Can You Define Quality in Peer Review?
And we’re off! Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf kick off the fifth annual Peer Review Week with their thoughts on defining quality in peer review principles and practices.