Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA) committee members champion the benefits of standardizing the transfer of papers between journals.
Part 2 of this series looking at open access developments in Canada examines the changing processes and infrastructure needs for open science.
Roger Schonfeld argues that openness and politicization together have enabled public trust in science to erode. And science is insufficiently trustworthy. The scholarly communication sector must not ignore this situation.
Today’s post looks back on the Journal of Emerging Investigators as it approaches it’s 10th anniversary of providing a forum from middle school and high school students.
Haseeb Irfanullah looks at recognition in peer review, what’s offered now and what’s on the horizon. How does this affect the process?
To round off Peer Review Week 2021, Phill Jones and Alice Meadows share work under way to map out a PID-optimized workflow for peer review – and invite your feedback!
In a collaborative open peer review process, the editor’s role changes as much as the reviewer’s role. Editors share some insights about how this works at JOSS.
Continuing our series of posts for Peer Review Week 2021, guest authors Matt Giampoala, Randy Townsend, and Paige Wooden of AGU share their efforts to improve reviewer and editorial board diversity.
Open peer review has been growing steadily but its implementations take many different forms. Alison Mudditt and Véronique Kiermer take a deep dive into the question of whether reviewers should be openly identified.
Identity in/ and Peer Review. Previewing some of the themes from this week’s posts for Peer Review Week.
The Steering Committee of Peer Review Week answers the question “What does identity in peer review mean to you?”
In anticipation of #PeerReviewWeek21 we asked the Chefs about the role of identity in peer review. See what they said and share your views!
Revisiting a 2017 post that asks, “When does a preprint become a publication?”
Byron Russell, John Sack, Alison McGonagle-O’Connell, and Tony Alves look at the way publishers are adapting their traditional submission workflows to better integrate the use of preprints.
Simultaneously submitting an article to multiple journals is considered an ethical violation. But the growth of preprints means that many articles are undergoing simultaneous yet parallel peer review processes. Will duplicate peer review become the norm?