One more answer to the question, Is Research Integrity Possible without Peer Review? Today’s response is from journal Editor-in-Chief and surgeon, D. Robert Siemens.
For an early start on Peer Review Week, we reached out to the SSP community to ask “Is research integrity possible without peer review?”
Learn about Elsevier’s recently launched Peer Review Workbench – a new tool for researchers conducting meta research – in this interview with Bahar Mehmani
SSP is recruiting for the next North American Editor for Learned Publishing. Consider applying or encouraging others to do so!
What are the likely impacts of the OSTP’s Nelson Memo on data sharing for researchers and repositories?
As our community bursts into motion, we offer a moment to slow down.
Announcing the first releases from our new program to create and offer translations of Scholarly Kitchen posts into different languages.
Day 2 of Chef reactions to the OSTP Policy memo. What are your thoughts? Share your views with the Scholarly Kitchen community.
Everyone has an opinion about the OSTP Policy memo! Come over and hear what the Chefs have to say and share your opinions with us. Part 1 of a 2 part post.
Some initial thoughts on the new OSTP memo on public access to results of federally funded research — and questions about its intent and implications.
What brings humanities infrastructure together — whether materials-based (content) or process-based (projects) or tools-based (platforms and laboratories) — is an iterative process of knowledge creation. Revisiting a post from 2020.
Today Angela Cochran revisits a post from 2016 on “revise and resubmit” decisions and what it means for authors and editors. Do new peer review models or cascading programs change the use of “revise and resubmit”?
No one questions the critical importance of a reliable biomedical literature, so why is achieving and maintaining publication integrity so fraught?
If we don’t know what citations mean, what does it mean when we count them? Revisiting a 2015 (!) post in light of recent developments in citation metrics and impact.
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.