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.
Robert Harington suggests that publishers need to do more for researchers to help authors, and to help reviewers understand their role as a reviewer and be recognized for their work. We need to tackle implicit bias in peer review. We need to focus on our “North Star”
A new kind of predator is taking advantage of unsuspecting authors. In this post, Angela Cochran discusses the forged acceptance letters received and what publishers can do to help authors avoid this costly and embarrassing pitfall.
The buzz around blockchain is mounting. But does it fit with scholarly publishing’s incentives and practices?
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?