To identify both benefits and risks of generative AI for our industry, we tested ChatGPT and Google Bard for authoring, for submission and reviews, for publishing, and for discovery and dissemination.
Modern “word processing” programs can do everything from check spelling and grammar to finishing your sentences for you. This might be convenient for the creator, but some “helpful” upgrades can wreak havoc for manuscript editors. In today’s Guest Post, Bruce Rosenblum and Sylvia Izzo Hunter explore the pitfalls of making the comments features less editor friendly.
Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2014 post on the importance of editors–how much of what we see as a failure of “peer review” is really a failure of editorial oversight?
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
The majority of time spent in editing and formatting citations in the publication process is time wasted. We now have in place nearly all the components to use persistent identifiers, linked metadata, and style sheets to improve how citations can be structured and processed. Using these tools can significantly improve the accuracy of references and reduce the time editors spend on this production function. Even when automated, we bounce between linked metadata, then to text, then to metadata again.
An alien landing in the scholarly and scientific publishing world today, reading all the opinions about how to make things more efficient and effective, might be forgiven for thinking there are only authors, readers, librarians, and reviewers. After all, those […]
A contemplation of constraints — how some have vanished, how others are needed, how new ones are emerging, and the benefits constraints deliver.
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review.
An analysis of publishing costs continues the theme of accountability and transparency, but perhaps focuses too much on the containers of information rather than how and why the containers are filled in the first place.
Publishers provide editors who do much more than proofread or copyedit. They provide editors who support authors and editors — and readers. Here’s an interview that sheds some important light.
The power and identity of Reviewer 3 springs from the shadows to ensnare the unwanted paper. But is it really a powerful spirit? Or just Dad in a mask?
We used to have editorial selection and ordering as a natural result of editorial control. With algorithms and news feeds dominating, where are the signals of priority and linked information? Did we really need the packaging?
Editors need to act more like publishers, and publishers need to have more editorial skills. Will the demands of the Age of Attention finally mend the editorial-business divide?
Should publishers endorse commercial editing services?