eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
When authors think peer-review is about their chances of acceptance rather than the quality of their paper, it can lead to the wrong expectations and unproductive behaviors.
Can a new open access journal that relies on working scientists to oversee its review process compete with other top-tier journals that employ professional editors?
The vaunted review article gets a neat little send-up, and reminds us that part of the value of humor is that it keeps you loose and helps you retain a skeptical perspective.
The rhetoric of “open” seeks to rally science to some higher state, but it’s not clear what “open science” means, why it’s any better, and what the risks of its adoption might be.
The US government’s requests for information are of great importance for the future of academia and scholarly publishing. If you’re a traditionalist who sees open access as the downfall of civilization, an advocate who thinks information must be free, or someone who falls somewhere in between, this is your chance to create the future you’re seeking.
A review of the novel “A Novel Bookstore” by Laurence Cossé, which imagines an ideal bookstore and the policies required, including peer review, to make such a venture possible.
We’ve lived long enough with the proposition that OA publishers compete with traditional publishers. Perhaps they do not. Some major indicators suggest a non-competitive coexistence.
Claims of speed can be used to carve out a competitive edge, especially for journals serving authors. PLoS ONE entered the market claiming fast publication times, but data show that PLoS ONE is slowing down, with times more than doubling over the past few years. Is PLoS ONE losing its speed advantage?
Does the release of a journal ranking metric signal a change in vision for post-publication peer review?
Allowing authors access to anti-plagiarism software makes pragmatic sense when you consider the demands scientific journals place on authors for perfect English, the pressures of group authorship, and the incrementalism of most papers. Perhaps it could even do more.
How well do citations predict Nobels? With an ever-expanding roster of eligible candidates, the going is getting tougher.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
It has become fashionable to rally against the elitism of journals and their editors. An economic argument for why we still need them both.
A critic of publishers and eminent economist is caught in a swirl of allegations about self-plagiarism.