Blindspot — Was a Key Factor Missed in the Study of Viral Lies?
A recent study of the spread of lies on Twitter is an important advance, but the authors missed a potentially huge factor, and one we can’t ignore.
Not Every Publisher Can Support A Cascade Journal
Solving the transfer problem has created a widespread perception that rejecting a manuscript–especially after considerable time and resources have been devoted to its review–is downright wasteful. If it’s publishable, why not publish it?
Cascades and Volcanoes — Are the Problems of Science in Public Discourse Getting Worse?
Hysteria over a supervolcano leads to speculation about the eruptions of misinformation all around us. And, why exactly are we seeing so many recycled news stories in social media these days?
Cascading Peer-Review — The Future of Open Access?
BMJ Open is marketed as high-volume journal of rejects. Did BMJ miss on marketing or is this the future of open access publishing?
Focusing on Value — 102 Things Journal Publishers Do (2018 Update)
In this update, the focus shifts to the value journal publishers offer, and who benefits.
Revisiting — Return of the Big Brands: How Legacy Publishers Will Coopt Open Access
Revisiting a 2015 post that predicted the dominance of the cascade model of journal portfolio publishing and the increased dominance of the larger existing publishers in an open access market.
Return of the Big Brands: How Legacy Publishers Will Coopt Open Access
Open access publishing has gone through a number of stages. Though different people will classify these stages in diverse ways, one way to view this is to say that since the initial period of advocacy for open access, commercial interests have entered this market and are now prepared to augment their positions by leveraging their elite brands, using them, as it were, to draw manuscripts for a family of cascading products.
Ask the Chefs: "What Do You Think Is the Most Important Trend in Publishing Today?"
Welcome to a new feature of the Scholarly Kitchen we’re calling “Ask the Chefs.” The premise is that each month, the Chefs (contributors) to the Scholarly Kitchen will answer a provocative question in a pithy paragraph or two. Each Chef answers the question without benefit of seeing the others’ responses. This month’s question: “What Do You Think Is the Most Important Trend in Publishing Today?”
Game of Papers: eLife, BMC, PLoS and EMBO Announce New Peer Review Consortium
eLife, BioMed Central (BMC), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) will be forming a new peer review consortium based around the concept of what eLife calls “portable peer review.”
Diversion, Invention, and Socialized Medicine
A study of social citation reveals diversion, invention, and distortion, and provides a cautionary tale about how socialization of knowledge in medicine can have downsides.
Revisiting — Should You “Revise and Resubmit”? Probably
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”?
When the Price of Rejection Becomes Cheaper
Does cascading peer-review increase inappropriate submissions?
Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)
Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do.
Plan S: Impact on Society Publishers
Plan S implementation guidance has not provided reassurance to anxious society publishers
How PLoS ONE Can Have It All
PLoS has an interesting opportunity before it to push its most robust service, PLoS ONE, very aggressively for growth. PLoS can do this by lowering the cost of publishing fees, which would make it increasingly hard for other publishers to match them for a Gold OA service. This could result in PLoS ONE becoming the default OA publishing option for all STM publishing.