Is the Essence of a Journal Portable?
When a journal’s entire editorial board is replaced, is it still the same journal? And if that board starts another journal on the same topic, is it a new one or a continuation of the old one? Discuss.
Focusing on Value — 102 Things Journal Publishers Do (2018 Update)
In this update, the focus shifts to the value journal publishers offer, and who benefits.
CiteScore–Flawed But Still A Game Changer
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
Caught in the Middle — Can Publishers Resolve Contradictory Expectations?
A session at ALPSP shines a light on why publishers are caught in an impossible situation — satisfying customers who demand different things at different times, and who are not aligned around the ultimate benefit they all seek to deliver.
Guest Post: Publons’ Tom Culley — Are We Doing Enough for Editors?
In the second post in our series to celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, guest author Tom Culley of Publons looks at the critical role played by editors in the peer review process and asks how we can better recognize it.
Revisiting: Splitting the Difference — Does an Editorial Mutiny at a Journal Do Much Long-term Damage?
The recent editorial board defection from an Elsevier journal brings up issues raised in Todd Carpenter’s 2013 post on editorial boycotts and declarations of independence. They generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown.
Exaggerated Claims — Has "Publish or Perish" Become "Publicize or Perish"?
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.
Why Are Publishers and Editors Wasting Time Formatting Citations?
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.
When a Scholar is One Among 500, What Does it Mean to be "An Author"?
Last week, an editorial in Nature highlighted the problem of the proliferating number of authors on papers. Following a 2012 symposium at Harvard University, a small group has proposed a taxonomy of contributor roles that would add details to an author list and have tested that among a group of authors. Scholarly publishers should consider adopting this taxonomy to improve the accuracy and granularity to improve attribution and the assignment of credit.
Splitting the Difference — Does an Editorial Mutiny at a Journal Do Much Long-term Damage?
Editorial boycotts and declarations of independence generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown.
The Referee Who Wasn’t There: The Ghostly Tale of Reviewer 3
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?
The (Post) Dating Game — Assembling the Evidence
Testing the hypothesis that editors are manipulating publication dates to increase their journal’s Impact Factor.
Does Post-Dating Publication Help Journal Impact Factors?
Publishing an article online and then post-dating its “official” publication several months later may be used to game a journal’s impact factor, a scientist claims.
When Journal Editors Coerce Authors to Self-Cite
Editors of business journals strategically coerce authors to increase citation rates, a new study in Science reports.
Can We Measure the Value of Professional Editors?
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?