[…] and interpretation easier and less error prone, and in doing so, to eliminate difficulties around reproducibility for the purposes of peer review and publication. Gigantum offers a work environment, that is, a framework for developing and doing actual computation, rather than […]
[…] new kind of product that disrupts the usual chain of command. The articles in most Common Threads volumes were already peer–reviewed, had copyright assignments or permissions, and needed only minor proofreading. Much of the labor of our monographs workflows was […]
[…] also not considered compliant and while that may disappoint some, this is a recognition of the value of high quality peer review for the scientific record. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t support preprints as an important mechanism for […]
[…] OA by providing comprehensive OA-option metrics to authors of primary research articles prior to submission, at submission, and during the peer–review process to maximize the uptake of the OA option. This promotion would be via online reports, seminars, and webinars. […]
[…] to graduate school to pursue an Ed.D., I will admit that I have a different perspective than most of my peers on legal issues. So imagine my surprise when I was told that I was required to enter into a […]
[…] One way to answer this question is to examine visual depictions of scholarly processes. Research workflow diagrams are everywhere: in peer–reviewed articles, online research reports and issue briefs, and blogs like the Scholarly Kitchen. These visualizations present a dizzying variety […]
[…] norms that tend to favor men. Amy’s work on gender barriers in a variety of industries has been published in peer–reviewed journals and edited volumes. She became interested in subtle (also called implicit or unconscious) bias as she experienced it […]
[…] How much power are researchers going to cede to those with money? Isn’t the whole reason we have the current peer review system an attempt to wrestle power away from funders and prevent them from restricting researchers? In a world where […]
[…] more secure submitting to our journal. We have a very clear concept of OA as the practice of free access of peer–reviewed scholarly research, literature or work to all readers, who are interested. It is also the fundamental base for the […]
[…] own businesses (here, here, here, and here). Joe Esposito intriguingly offered a proposal for the use of preprints and post-publication peer review to replace journals back in 2010. We haven’t had as much predictive success with the idea of submission fees […]
[…] media attention into play. We also see opportunities in specialized innovations that can improve our services, like format-free submission and peer review recognition, all the while collecting meaningful data points that serve to evaluate every step in publication. It would be […]
[…] that’s about it in terms of what might seem unique about FSCI. Its themes will feel familiar: impact, collaboration, reproducibility, peer review, questionable publishing practices, data, code, and open, open, open. Its teaching mechanisms are also tried and tested: lectures, seminars, […]
[…] To use the blog posts on the Scholarly Kitchen as a sample, we find great interest in this community in peer review, libraries, demographic diversity, the quality of research outputs, the metrics that are intended to be a proxy for quality, […]
[…] an appropriate journal (and avoiding predatory publishers) and using thinkchecksubmit, and how to understand and avoid plagiarism. More than 50 Peer Reviewers and English language copyeditors have been enlisted, and more of the former, from among Michigan’s doctoral students in Health-related […]
[…] the system. Each editorial office has its own personality, its own go-to features and its own “can’t live without” functionality. Peer review standards and processes vary from journal to journal. This makes it very difficult to build a system around a […]