I’m delighted to announce the addition of a new voice in The Scholarly Kitchen, Siân Harris. Siân is the Publications and Engagement Manager at INASP, an international development organization that supports the production, sharing and use of research and knowledge […]
Scholarly publishers are already doing much to make government funded research as free as possible as soon as it is published. Why do we need a law to enact what is already taking shape? Robert Harington suggests it comes down to politics.
The genetics testing copany 23andme presents an interesting example of a new kind of data publishing.
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
To round out Peer Review Week 2017, here’s a brief summary of some key takeaways from this year’s Peer Review Congress, held every four years.
Continuing our Peer Review Week celebrations, we asked representatives from three very different organizations – the American Historical Association, BioMed Central and The Royal Society – to share their thoughts on the evolution of peer review for journals from its beginnings through the present and into the future.
Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
In anticipation of Peer Review Week, we’ve asked the Chefs their opinions on if and how peer review might change. Come tell us yours!
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
Today sees the launch of Metadata 2020, a new initiative to improve research metadata by increasing our understanding of its value, and engaging with the community to ensure it’s fit for purpose. Led by Crossref and supported by individuals and organizations across all of scholarly communications, participation is open to all. Find out more, including how to get involved, in today’s post.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? What about patents on publicly funded research? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
Robert Harington reviews a delightful new book that reminds you of how delightful our publishing world can be. Printer’s Error: Irreverent Stories From Publishing History by Rebecca Romney and J. P. Romney.