Social Media Archives - The Scholarly Kitchen

Gaps in Academic Communication

Tao Tao looks at some surprising communication gaps in scholarly communication that hamper progress but also provide market opportunities.

Syndication Success: A Report from the Springer Nature and ResearchGate Pilot

Results of this partnership signal we should expect future expansion of content syndication.

Tweeting-Citations Authors Speak, Finally

We stand by our data. We just won’t share it or believe that you replicated our study.

Reanalysis of Tweeting Study Yields No Citation Benefit

Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.

Intention to Tweet: Medical Study Reports Tweets Improve Citations

A paper linking tweets and citations comes under attack, but more from the authors’ inability to answer even basic questions about their paper and resistance to share their data.

Reforming Research Assessment: A Tough Nut to Crack

Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.

Data Analysis: How Effective Is TrendMD?

A reanalysis of TrendMD experimental data reveal details on its effectiveness, novelty, and bias.

Study: Recommender Systems May Increase Citations

TrendMD may drive traffic, saves, and citations, according to a new study by the founders and employees of TrendMD. Deeper analysis of their results reveal overstated results and a lack of context. Should these papers be considered sound science just another form of marketing?

How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer

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.