The most vital and enduring contribution of scholarly publishers is their role as gatekeepers — not as obstacles to knowledge but as stewards of quality, integrity, and trust.
Editors at The BMJ are lousy at predicting the citation performance of research papers. Or are they?
Scholarly publishing needs a scalable, easily adopted, and industry-wide approach to the problem of author manuscripts including citations to articles in fraudulent journals.
What constitutes peer review of a data set?
Scale can be achieved by broadly outsourcing the editorial process. Does this lead to a loss in quality control, and is this acceptable?
Do papers reporting null results or confirmational results need to go through the same process as papers reporting significant and novel results? Or do they require only passing a perfunctory editorial review?