Scholarly Communications Meets your Christmas Cracker
It’s been “the year of generative AI”, so Charlie Rapple asked ChatGPT to write some cracker-standard Christmas jokes with a scholarly communications theme.
Mental Health Awareness Mondays — Being Your Whole Self: Disability and Neurodivergency
With all the intricacies of intersectionality – gender, ethnicity, disability, neurodivergency, mental health, and other identifiers – how can we be true to our whole self while also being authentic as our work-selves in our day-to-day roles?
Kitchen Essentials: An Interview with Juan Pablo Alperin and John Willinsky of PKP
[…] initial version of Open Journal Systems (OJS), I discovered how much I enjoyed the design challenges of capturing the various workflow steps, decisions, options, files, and participants involved in the editorial process of moving journal submissions through to publication. It […]
AI Will Lead Us to Need More Garbage-subtraction.
Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
Redefining “Normal” in Academia
The traditional “normal” in academia often lacks the richness and dynamism required for robust intellectual discourse and innovation. How can we cultivate a “personalized normal” that celebrates the uniqueness of researchers and empowers them to communicate their discoveries innovatively?
Smorgasbord: eLife and Significance vs. Accuracy, The Collapse of the Humanities, and a new NISO Draft on Retractions Standards
A mixed bag post from us — can you separate out the significance of research results from their validity? What will the collapse of the Humanities mean for scholarly publishing writ large? And a new draft set of recommended practices for communicating retractions, removals, and expressions of concern.
Guest Post — Reflecting on a Decade with the Open Discovery Initiative: Insights from IEEE
[…] Service Providers, and Libraries Can Do to Close the Gaps.” Optimizing Content Discovery: Leveraging Automation and Metadata Upgrades for Seamless Workflow Integration. As we worked to align with ODI standards, we introduced significant changes to our operations. We automated certain […]
Welcoming a New Chef in the Kitchen, Roohi Ghosh
Today, Roohi Ghosh officially joins us as a regular contributor in The Scholarly Kitchen.
How Does Mandated Code-sharing Change Peer Review? An Interview with PLOS Computational Biology
In today’s Peer Review Week guest post, Joe Pold of PLOS interviews the senior editorial team of PLOS Computational Biology about their experience of mandating code sharing for the journal, and its impact on peer review
Embedding DEIA in Peer Review Processes: An Interview with SSP’s DEIA Outreach Subcommittee about their Upcoming Toolkit
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
The American Chemical Society Offers a New Twist on the Article Processing Charge: An Interview with Sarah Tegen
The American Chemical Society is offering a new approach to funding open-access articles; Rick Anderson interviews Sarah Tegen about it.
Ending Human-Dependent Peer Review
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
Having the Courage to Explain Research in Plain Language
The Curse of Knowledge is when we assume everyone else understands what we’re talking about, when they don’t. Good communication happens when we have the courage to make it simple.
Navigating the Shifting Sands: New Directions Organizers on the Upcoming Seminar
Volunteer organizers reflect on SSP’s upcoming 2023 New Directions seminar — early bird registration closes September 8th!
Guest Post — Can Inadequate Corrections Turn Misinformation into Disinformation?
Could the failure of a journal to visibly correct known errors in a publication, thereby propagating false information, be considered disinformation?