[…] reputable journals, yet at the same time, their practices have been widely questioned. Researchers have publicly called out Frontiers’ worrisome peer review practices. Earlier this year, the publisher fired some 31 medical editors who complained that Frontiers’ policies “are designed to […]
[…] much. Jason: “This has always been a movement to fundamentally change how research works, with more scalable filters and recommendations than peer review.” Paul: “It was barely about evaluation and I would even take out what there was – and focus more heavily […]
[…] daily basis, evolve in how they value to the benefits offered, find new and effective ways to interact with their peers, and develop alternative methods for acting as a national or global group to work on issues, what is an […]
[…] a by-product of megajournals taking the focus off of journals and putting it on content. The function and purpose of peer review has also been opened up for even more discussion because PLOS ONE dared to do it differently, as do […]
[…] if the similar approach in the UK creates a similar expense problem. Will anyone tell us? The rationale for publishing peer–reviewed author manuscripts has always been a little elusive. Now we know that doing so is also expensive. most of […]
[…] of course! For example, without exception, members and non-members alike value the same membership benefits – access to the society’s peer–reviewed journal(s), and opportunities for continuing education and training. Over the coming months, we will be digging into more of […]
[…] social media services. The Income Tax square is renamed VAT and is waived for anyone making more that $1 million. Peer Review replaces the corner jail; however, a player can roll out early (‘fast-tracked’) by paying $750. Free Parking, thankfully, is still […]
[…] on data collection. So does that mean that automated recommendation systems will eventually come around to employing editorial boards and peer review for suggestions? What does “spoonfed” information do to the creative process? While Roger Schonfeld recently wrote about the idea […]
PeerJ‘s first Impact Factor is not expected to surpass 2.000. Without the scale of PLOS ONE, PeerJ may need to seek a larger, diversified buyer. What the journal has to offer other publishers is less clear.
[…] the comments sections we see on blogs such as The Scholarly Kitchen? Can a robust annotation scheme enable meaningful post-publication peer review? How do we design the interface so that we see the annotations we want and are not distracted by […]
[…] document is published in a normal toll-access venue, typically a subscription journal, but some version of it (often the author’s final peer–reviewed manuscript) is placed in a public repository, often becoming publicly available after some embargo period designed to let the […]
[…] invite submissions for research that is still ongoing. Submissions come in and work their way through the editorial process, including peer review. This is even more evident in the book world, where editors are on the lookout for certain kinds of […]
[…] of worth—some tenure evaluations are conducted by counting “hits”—attention replaces citation as the academic author’s compensation. One trouble here is: Peer review may reward opacity, but a search engine rewards nothing so much as outrageousness. Notice the rhetorical progression in this […]
[…] permanent fixture in our culture, and we remain in the throes of the access crisis and the (at least perceived) peer review crisis. The data access crisis is just coming over the horizon, and it’s going to be a doozy. The […]
[…] practical answer exists: a guide embargo of 24 months and CHORUS as the private sector interactive repository of the final peer–reviewed papers. That goes a long way to a solution. Q: How has the article been received overall? Were you […]