Former scientist, turned publisher, turned research program director, Milka Kostic is uniquely placed to look at publishing from a researcher and a publisher perspective. In this interview with Alice Meadows, she shares her thoughts on both.
An interactive visualization of article publication data from the 2016 NSF Science & Engineering Report suggest discrepancies in the cultures of science around the world.
A brief analysis of the University of California’s recently announced Open Access policy for faculty.
Books and book chapters have a competitive disadvantage in citations, but it’s not accessibility that makes the difference — there are more reasons, and more changes needed.
Article reprints can be a considerable source of income for some medical journals and there is some worry that this source of income presents a conflict of interest for publishers.
Humor about scientific misconduct may reflect a deeper, more serious side of academic culture gone wrong.
Does cascading peer-review increase inappropriate submissions?
Should publishers endorse commercial editing services?
When Nature goes head-to-head with PLoS, will non-profit society publishers take the hit?
If submission fees result in a more sustainable business model, why are open access publishers opposed to the idea?
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?
Supplemental data undermine scientific integrity by undermining the peer review process.
National Academy of Sciences members contribute the very best (and very worst) articles in PNAS, a recent analysis suggests. Is diversity a better indicator of success than consistency in science publishing?
Is the creation of an author publication fund really an experiment? Or a piece of fiscal advocacy dressed up in scientific clothes?
Will $800 buy you a publication in a Bentham Science journal?