[…] to outsource these activities to specialists, freeing the researcher to spend time on research, rather than on tracking down tardy peer reviewers or checking references. The work done to provide these services must be paid for in some manner. One of […]
[…] scale (e.g., the ‘Big Deal’) of the commercial publishers. We do know that a researcher cares about quality – of peer review, copy-editing, publishing alongside respected peers, and perhaps most of all citation. There are now a range of options for […]
[…] research? (As an aside, that PeerJ blog post, particularly the now struck-through retracted text, is the perfect example of why peer review should be done anonymously, a clear case of how doing a review could lead to retaliation against a researcher). […]
[…] and supporting research communities around the world. I see great opportunities for publishers and for companies like ProQuest in the evolution of models for scholarly communication that value scholarship, peer review, discovery, curation, and preservation. Enhanced by Zemanta ProQuest Enhanced by Zemanta
[…] new Chefs Robert Harington, Ken Wissoker and Angela Cochran joining the fold, and Tim Vines departing to pursue his new peer review venture Axios Review. Stewart Wills instigated a semi-weekly podcast that was very well-received and will hopefully resume in the […]
[…] risk-free model, one that might include, as banks seemingly have concluded their model should, the occasional government and public bailout. Peer–review, technology, and even running a basic business creates expenses — Of course, one of the lessons of open access […]
[…] (a usage perpetuated by Nature Publishing Group as the two entities came together.) A version of this is used by PeerJ (“Your Peers, Your Science”). It sounds like a reasonable message. However, it’s fraught with problems once you deconstruct and […]
[…] underway for decades. Currently, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines state the following: All participants in the peer–review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. BMC currently lists […]
[…] and maintain the venues that establish and record priority and lend prestige, including the third-party validation, the underlying coordination of peer–review, the maintenance and integration of platforms, the dissemination and longevity of materials, and so forth. This is the case […]
[…] I will miss most if current trends continue, is the loss of the bricks-and-mortar bookstore. I can live with “ peer review lite” such as we have at PLOS One, community-based (and often unreliable) content a la Wikipedia, attacks on copyright, […]
[…] very much resembles that of BMJ Open, with a few missing pieces: The journal will employ an open and transparent peer review process in which papers will be accepted or rejected as rapidly as possible, generally with only one round of […]
[…] media. It’s also a good sign for content creators. We are living in an era where Netflix streaming has replaced peer-to-peer filesharing as the major usage of bandwidth, where an app developer realized better sales by getting rid of the […]
[…] a scholarly journal. This scientist (renowned in his field) was kind in his delivery, but the message resonated throughout his peers. I learned that if I were going to convince scientists to change their behavior, I needed to be upfront […]
[…] examples and a nice anecdote were provided by Todd McGee Rich Dodenhoff contributed an insightful perspective on “The Collapse of Peer Review” There is a nice comment thread on “Optimists and Technology” Bill Kasdorf added a nice comment to “Sneaky Disruption, […]
[…] David — journal brand as filtering mechanism. There’s value in pre-publication review as a filtering mechanism, just as for post-pub peer review. One last audience question: How did you feel about being nominated for a Webby? The less than enthusiastic response: […]