To what extent are scholarly publishers and societies actively engaging with early career researchers? Findings from a white paper, and polls at the SSP annual meeting, are shared.
When a reputable journal refuses to get involved with a questionable paper, science looks less like a self-correcting enterprise and more like a way to amass media attention.
Joe Esposito revisits his 2012 post on the unstated theory of the e-book, which assumes that a book consists only of its text and can be manipulated without regard to the nature and circumstances of its creation. This is only one theory of many, but it is now the prevailing one.
How much has changed in a dozen years? Lettie Conrad looks back at Ann Michael’s post from the 2009 SSP Annual Meeting, “Publishing for the Google Generation”.
What have we learned over the course of the COVID pandemic? Our authors revisit earlier posts with updates, now that we have a longer view. First, Karin Wulf revisits her post on selling books in a pandemic.
Tao Tao looks at some surprising communication gaps in scholarly communication that hamper progress but also provide market opportunities.
Results of this partnership signal we should expect future expansion of content syndication.
We stand by our data. We just won’t share it or believe that you replicated our study.
Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.
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.
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.
A reanalysis of TrendMD experimental data reveal details on its effectiveness, novelty, and bias.
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?
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.
A look at the most popular social media networks by users over time.