Those who argue that “predatory” behavior is not only a problem among author-pays OA publishers have a good point. But this raises another question: is the term “predatory” itself really useful in the context of scholarly communication?
The design and construction of article performance measures can reveal deeply held biases.
This Guest Post from Phaedra Cress explores the increased acceptance of unethical behavior in scholarly publishing.
Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief.
The latest STM Trends is out, showing a future where humans and machines are integrated and engaged, supporting research and output sharing.
Roger Schonfeld argues that openness and politicization together have enabled public trust in science to erode. And science is insufficiently trustworthy. The scholarly communication sector must not ignore this situation.
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
Bragging about downloads is akin to saying your site doesn’t work well. Authors will soon start to notice.
Testing the hypothesis that editors are manipulating publication dates to increase their journal’s Impact Factor.
While we usually think of innovators as visionaries with big ideas that challenge the very assumptions of the way we conduct our lives, many innovations seem to happen almost by accident. The challenge is how to make these accidents occur more often and to benefit from them.
Love it or loathe, blockchain is making the headlines everywhere! But what exactly is it? Does it really have a role to play in scholarly communications? If so, what and how? In this interview, Joris van Rossum (Digital Science) and Martijn Roelandse (Springer Nature) answer these questions and more.
How do we strike a balance between humans and AI to improve peer review? We’ve interviewed a few publishing experts who specialize in human and AI ethical, equitable, and sustainable publishing solutions to share their thoughts on the future of peer review.
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.
Saikiran Chandha discusses the impact of GPT-3 and related models on research, the potential question marks, and the steps that scholarly publishers can take to protect their interests.
In today’s post, chefs Alice Meadows and Tim Vines interview Richard Wynne, Founder of Rescognito, a free service for recognizing and promoting Open Research.