Robert Harington and Melinda Baldwin discuss whether peer review has a role to play in uncovering scientific fraud.
Are libraries “neutral”? That question is way too simplistic to serve as anything other than a political football.
A look at developments in research integrity, and the attempt to build a universal culture of ethical and responsible practice in research as well as systems within the overall research ecosystem for such a culture to flourish.
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
Should the library focus first on serving its local constituency, or on changing the scholarly communication ecosystem? No matter how we answer this question, the implications will be complex.
Can you prioritize privacy in user research? Simply put – yes.
Even Silicon Valley is finding that recurring revenues (aka, subscriptions) lead to more valuable businesses, while helping smaller companies thrive.
A new book explores how biases and broken systems get built into technology products and platforms.
Are we losing good articles to predatory journals, with little recourse for unsuspecting authors? Or are authors becoming increasingly complicit and symbiotic in their relationships with illegitimate publishing entities with disregard for the greater good? Maybe it’s both. Today’s guest post explores what can happen when an author accidentally falls into the predatory journal rabbit hole.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
In recent years, observers have noticed that articles for which an APC has been paid are not always made freely available. How pervasive is this problem? A Scholarly Kitchen reader investigates.
President Obama has published three articles in six months in three of the world’s most prestigious scholarly journals. Is it appropriate? With these precedents, what happens when the politics of the President conflicts with the politics of science?
The new book, “Weapons of Math Destruction,” calls out many worrying trends in the application of big data, with particularly salient entries on higher education rankings, for-profit universities, the justice system, insurance, and employment.
With a new partnership with F1000, Wellcome embraces sketchy peer review standards, deep conflicts of interest, and financial support of a private, commercial enterprise. Worse, the entire thing seems redundant, avoidable, and unnecessary.
What does it mean for libraries to be competitive and “entrepreneurial”? And is the very concept a Trojan horse for neoliberalism? Does it matter?