Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson discuss some implications of a recent research report on the future of the scholarly monograph.
In this guest post, Rob Johnson and Andrea Chiarelli of Research Consulting discuss the findings of their recent research study into the recent growth of preprint servers and explore how publishers might respond.
New today: In a crowded and confusing landscape for research data preservation and sharing, two fundamentally competing visions are emerging. Which will win?
Part 2 — how will the rapidly evolving world of researcher software impact scholarly communications?
Part 1 of a two-part look at the rapidly evolving research software space and how it is changing scholarly communication.
Robert Harington suggests that despite the critical role of scholarly societies in publishing and academia, the sad reality is it is the big corporate publishers who win.
Given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?
From the Peer Review Congress, what’s changed and what’s about to change? John Sack conducts an interview with the Executive Director and Co-Director of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.
Quality means different things to different people. How do you think different stakeholders would define quality in peer review?
A logic problem for your Friday that at first may seem counterintuitive.
An interview with Jason Lorgan, executive director of campus stores at @UCDavis, about the university’s innovative new textbook-affordability program.
How does scholarly communications benefit from coopetition, the cooperation of competitors? Come see what the Chefs said and tell us your thoughts!
Could scholarly publishers’ skills and capacity be re-positioned to serve researchers at earlier stages in the research process, “upstream” of publication? Charlie Rapple shares findings from a survey of the communications needs of almost 10,000 researchers.
If publishers truly are service providers, then better care should be taken in setting up journal submission guidelines and formats. This guest post by Mriganka Awati shares author feedback on the frustrations with the current submission processes and offers solutions for consideration.