Conventional wisdom has well-known researchers getting more and more requests for reviews, leading some to suggest the system is broken and about to implode. Yet, when real-world data are analyzed, some surprises emerge.
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
Follow the money in academic publishing, and you find ponds that resemble the larger lakes of academia in general. By mimicking endowment practices originating at large universities, are not-for-profits limiting their ability to grow?
When the data fail us, it’s up to the palate to discern the finest creations from the Kitchen. This year, there was a feast of offerings. This is one attempt at listing the most savory.
UNESCO, along with the U.S. State Department and others, launch a portal that has plenty of information, lower than usual amounts of rhetoric, but remains controversial because of how it’s positioned.
eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
When authors think peer-review is about their chances of acceptance rather than the quality of their paper, it can lead to the wrong expectations and unproductive behaviors.
As Thanksgiving envelopes the US in turkey, tradition, and rituals of all sorts, its good to take stock of where the Kitchen finds itself, and to thank its most important element — its audience.
The two Requests for Information recently put forth by the federal government require a realistic set of responses, and hint at some changes in attitudes and approaches.
The US government’s requests for information are of great importance for the future of academia and scholarly publishing. If you’re a traditionalist who sees open access as the downfall of civilization, an advocate who thinks information must be free, or someone who falls somewhere in between, this is your chance to create the future you’re seeking.
We’ve lived long enough with the proposition that OA publishers compete with traditional publishers. Perhaps they do not. Some major indicators suggest a non-competitive coexistence.
Now is your chance to shape the SSP program as a speaker or session organizer. The Call for Participation is open now through November 11, and we want to hear from you with a proposal for a session you would like to see, organize, or lead.
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?”
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
Information tailored to the user requires identity services that are useful and trusted. Will Google+ create a new baseline standard? Whither ORCID? Why can one succeed while one might be doomed? And what might the world look like for scientists when these opportunities are captured?