Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? This post by Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and offers suggestions for closing the gap.
The idea of starting over with new peer review management system can make you break out in a cold sweat. Karen Stanwood offers her experience and lessons learned for those considering making a move.
The fifth annual Peer Review Week will take place from September 16-20, 2019. In this post, co-founder Alice Meadows reflects on its history and achievements, and looks forward to this year’s celebrations.
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.