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.
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.
Some thoughts about using social media in a more intentional and humane manner, and video presentation by Dan Harvey on why outrage and anger are so prevalent (and valuable) online.