Another “mixed bag” post from us — Is it time to leave Twitter? How can we incentivize journals and authors to take up open science practices? What is “involution” and is DEIA the solution?
In today’s post, chefs Alice Meadows and Tim Vines interview Richard Wynne, Founder of Rescognito, a free service for recognizing and promoting Open Research.
Silicon Valley’s advertising model has been exploited, and free information’s price is more apparent. Will we be saved by subscription model innovations?
There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Shorter deadlines, email reminders, and cash incentives can speed up the peer review process and minimize unintended effects, a recent study suggests. Can it work for other disciplines?
Publication rewards productive scientists but has the unintended consequences of isolating scholars, reducing knowledge transfer and steering scientists away from engaging in policy and the press.
Rewarding scientists with cash bonuses when they publish in prestigious journals drives up submission rates but has no effect on publication success, a new study reports.
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system?
What happens when a proposed solution for a problem becomes an end unto itself? Is peer review really more important than research itself?
Reputation — fragile, cumulative, and indirect — is the reward of science. Direct compensation to motivate specific behaviors is a dangerous proposal.