The President of the American Nuclear Society explains why the Nelson Memo may cause trepidation but bring opportunity.
Major scholarly publishers have made substantial investments in preprints in recent years, integrating preprint deposit into manuscript submission workflows.
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.
The design and construction of article performance measures can reveal deeply held biases.
Articles are published before they’re reviewed; doubts about a paper are viewed as a positive status; papers only need to contain “science;” review and revision can continue forever; and PubMed Central is their certifying entity. Welcome to the world of F1000 Research.
Comparing the length of post-publication peer reviews in F1000 Research to those done pre-publication in four major medical journals shows authors are less likely to receive constructive or substantial criticism with F1000 Research reviews, despite a highly academic reviewer pool.
Expert ratings have poorer predictive power than journal citation metrics, study reveals.
With the creation of Rubriq, co-founders Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier have broken new ground. Rubriq is an attempt to provide peer-review independent from journals.
The rankings of journals based on F1000 scores reveals a strong bias against larger journals and those with little disciplinary overlap with the biosciences.
Does the release of a journal ranking metric signal a change in vision for post-publication peer review?
Post-publication review is spotty, unreliable, and may suffer from cronyism, several studies reveal.