A recap of a recent SSP webinar on artificial intelligence (AI) and scholarly publishing. How can this set of technologies help or harm scholarly publishing, and what are some current trends? What are the risks of AI, and what should we look out for?
Are libraries “neutral”? That question is way too simplistic to serve as anything other than a political football.
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Bahar Mehmani of Elsevier, who interviewed Professor Jeffrey Unerman about his work on the risks of self-referential peer review.
Chefs Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf tackle Peer Review Week 2020’s theme of Trust in Peer Review with this post on trust as both an ethic and a practice
In today’s guest post, Kasia Repeta of Duke University Press focuses on the often-overlooked issue of bias against those who speak English with an accent and urges us all to be more inclusive.
A new book explores how biases and broken systems get built into technology products and platforms.
The Altmetric “flower” is an icon, and the annual Top 100 list a much-anticipated event. But is the flower really a stalk?
Information manipulation is not new, yet everything is different. How do governments, preprints, algorithms, and our own responsibilities intersect? Where does peer review come in now?
Community management has become a key part of social media and online publishing, whether we realize it or not. In this interview, an expert in the fields shares some views of how organizations can benefit from a more singular focus.
Last week’s Transforming Research conference in Baltimore, MD, gathered a range of speakers across the academic and professional spectrum. Charlie Rapple highlights some of the new research that was shared, and draws out some of the prevalent themes.
The term “diversity” can be thrown around like we know what it means, but it is highly contextual, not always visual, and tricky to implement meaningfully.
A recent study finds that academic press offices exaggerate claims in their press releases about published research. Worse, the vast majority of these find their way into subsequent reporting.
The idea of “reanalysis” needs to be rethought, if recent examples are any indication of what this trend could do to science.
The rankings of journals based on F1000 scores reveals a strong bias against larger journals and those with little disciplinary overlap with the biosciences.
Not all conflicts are monetary. Sometimes, the pressure to do something good can lead to biased behavior.