To kick off Peer Review Week 2018, Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf — guest editors for this week — share their vision of the environmental requirements for a diverse and inclusive peer review ecosystem.
In advance of Peer Review week, what are your ideas for ensuring diversity in peer review? Come see what the Chefs had to say and add your ideas to the conversation!
Annotation is increasingly being recognized as a valuable tool in scholarly communications, enabling increased engagement and collaboration and better metrics, and helping improve the quality of scholarly outputs. In this guest post, Heather Staines (Director of Business Development – Hypothes.is) and Alexander Naydenov (Head of Marketing and Co-Founder – Paperhive) tell us why!
We can be certain that, if Elsevier asserts its obvious platform advantages, there is no data firewall that can protect other publishers from Elsevier’s strategic advance.
Thanks to a major new international research study, it’s no longer possible to pretend that predatory journals are not a serious problem that needs serious attention. The question is: do we have the will to confront it?
With the news last week that Elsevier made another strategic purchase with the acquisition of Aries System, owner of Editorial Manager submission and peer review systems, Angela Cochran looks at what happens to societies and smaller publishers when the big competing publishers buy up the previously publisher agnostic service providers.
Elsevier’s acquisition of Aries Systems sends shockwaves through the industry, but is it really that surprising?
Recent coordinated investigatory journalism articles, along with separate regulatory actions, are squeezing predatory publishers. But are the root causes being addressed?
Peer Review Week 2018 takes place September 10-15. Find out more about the theme, how you can get involved, and what we will be doing to celebrate here on The Scholarly Kitchen in this post by Alice Meadows
HighWire’s John Sack discusses MECA, a framework for best-practices development in manuscript transfer across systems.
An author found that the relevant journals were unwilling to publish an article of historical research that found evidence for a surprising and somewhat controversial proposition about the founding of the University of Utah. So what did she decide to do with her article? Something rather unusual, it turns out.
Editors are in a position of power to coerce authors to cite their journal and personal papers. Can algorithms help detect misconduct when authors and journal staff are unwilling to speak out?
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.