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.
In this update, the focus shifts to the value journal publishers offer, and who benefits.
Business models that exploit vulnerabilities are unfair. Can a model that aligns producer and consumers help fix the Internet?
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?
Solving the transfer problem has created a widespread perception that rejecting a manuscript–especially after considerable time and resources have been devoted to its review–is downright wasteful. If it’s publishable, why not publish it?
Would an AI-driven peer review system improve objectivity? Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction explains the biases and subjectivity inherent in algorithms.
Many column inches – right here in the Scholarly Kitchen as well as elsewhere – have been expended on the megajournal and its successes and (perhaps more often), failures. But how might megajournals support the very real need for action to improve the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research?