Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)
Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do.
Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review
Do we need more metrics, or can some questions be answered more easily?
PNAS: Tighter Editorial Policy Improves NAS Papers
After years of tightening its submissions policy, papers contributed by NAS members start resembling direct submissions.
Is Reviewer Fatigue a Real Thing?
Editors are quick to assume that reviewer fatigue is slowing them down; but one journal found that excessive invitations to review was not cited as a major reason why reviewers declined invitations.
Survey: What Do Authors Expect From Peer Review?
Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox.
Do Academy Members Publish Better Papers?
When journals provide academy members a VIP submission track, do their papers perform any better?
What is an Academic Journal?
We spend much time these days wondering when the academic journal as we know it will cease to exist. Robert Harington discusses the role of the journal in light of a fascinating new venture in the field of mathematics – the overlay journal Discrete Analysis.
Welcome to Peer Review Week!
Welcome to the first – but hopefully not the last – Peer Review Week: an opportunity to celebrate the fundamental role played by peer review in scholarly communications, and the many diverse efforts to improve and support it.
Revisiting: The Editor — A Vital Role We Barely Talk About Anymore
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2014 post on the importance of editors–how much of what we see as a failure of “peer review” is really a failure of editorial oversight?
Peer Review Week – A Celebration!
Peer review is fundamental to scholarly communications – not just journal articles, but conference papers, grants, promotion and tenure, and more. Four organizations plan to honor it through a Peer Review Week later this month – we hope you’ll join the celebrations!
Extreme Bias: How Rejection Clouds The Eyes of Researchers
The publication experience of authors may come down to a single factor: was the manuscript accepted?
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Ivan Oransky and Retraction Watch
In this episode, Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky talks with podcast host Michael Clarke about the causes, trends, and problems with retractions of scientific research papers.
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: "101 Innovations" and Scientific Workflow
Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, librarians at Utrecht University, talk with podcast host Stewart Wills about their 101 Innovations project.
The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review
Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions.
Challenges, Connections, Conversations, and Collaboration – Lessons from the May 2015 ORCID-CASRAI Conference
The recent ORCID-CASRAI conference in Barcelona brought together over 150 researchers, research administrators, funders, publishers, vendors, and others working in scholarly communications to discuss research evaluation, with a particular focus on social science and humanities – resulting in some interesting conversations and observations