Is It Still Disruption When You’ve Done It Yourself?
The fact that scientific publishing hasn’t been disrupted may be a sign of a problem, not an advantage. A future choice may be disruption or irrelevance. Which will we choose?
The fact that scientific publishing hasn’t been disrupted may be a sign of a problem, not an advantage. A future choice may be disruption or irrelevance. Which will we choose?
Despite predictions and analyses to the contrary, STM publishing hasn’t been disrupted yet. Perhaps there’s more here than meets the eye . . .
Do medical editors have different quality standards based on the author’s geographic location?
National Academy of Sciences members contribute the very best (and very worst) articles in PNAS, a recent analysis suggests. Is diversity a better indicator of success than consistency in science publishing?
Self-publishing initiatives in consumer publishing a falling under harsh criticism. Why aren’t similar endeavors in the purportedly more disciplined area of scholarly publishing experiencing the same?
Scientist, editor, and OA advocate Jonathan A. Eisen rages against an infamous author-pays OA publisher.
When an author conceals information, and a blog branded with a respectable newspaper plays along, it doesn’t engender confidence in the new information space.
An email glitch on Wednesday might have hidden a great post. If you missed “Open Access and Vanity Publishing,” here’s your prompt to give it a careful read. It’s well worth it.
Under threat of litigation, Emerald reverses claim of plagiarism to “communication error.” Offending author allowed to correct and republish work.
Are older reviewers more cursory in their reviews? A study by the editor of the Annals of Emergency Medicine suggests as much.
An author-pays open access model for humanities and social sciences journals is not a sustainable option, a detailed analysis of association publishers suggests.
Moving beyond citations, publisher paints broader picture of quality with palette of performance indicators.
Providing incentives to reviewers may be key to improving the peer review process.
Mass-market book publishing is being disrupted more quickly than anyone expected. What lessons can we learn?
The plateau of entries in Wikipedia has people scratching their heads. Are the editors becoming elitists? Is quality beating quantity? Or is it a little of both?