What Motivates Reviewers? An Experiment in Economics
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?
How Can We Make the Publishing Process More Sound?
At a time when more research articles are more readily available to more readers globally than ever before, it’s crucial we are confident that those papers meet the highest standards and, that on those occasions where they don’t, there is a sound system in place to revise or retract them. So what can we do to make the publishing process more sound?
What Researchers Value from Publishers, Canadian Survey
Peer review, journal reputation, and fast publication were selected by Canadian researchers as the top three factors in deciding where to submit their manuscripts, trumping open access, article-level metrics, and mobile access, a recent study reports.
How Do We Address the Continuing Problem of Inadequate and Deceptive Publishing Practices?
Technological trends have enabled experiments in publishing. But now that we’ve seen plenty of experiments, is it time to bring them under control?
A Report from Inside Innovation — The Excitement and Uncertainty of the New
In the midst of a couple of major projects, here are some top-of-mind lessons from cultivating and sharing ideas on the long road of innovation.
Stick to Your Ribs: The Problems With Calling Comments "Post-Publication Peer-Review"
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2012 post about how comments and letters probably shouldn’t be branded as “post-publication peer review”.
Frontiers of Intimidation — What a Controversial Paper's Travails Teach Us About Libel Laws and Publishing
Retracting a paper identifying a link between climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists provokes more conspiracy theories, but it turns out the real impetus for retraction is disappointingly parochial and explicable.
The Scam, the Sting, and the Reaction: Labbé, Bohannon, Sokal
Editors keep allowing nonsense and gibberish to be published in their journals and conference proceedings. How many exposés and sting operations will it take before scholarly publishing begins effectively to police itself?
A Metric for the Quality of Peer Review: Interview with Adam Etkin of PreSCORE
Adam Etkin describes the workings and rationale for scoring papers and journals based on the rigor of peer review they received prior to publication.
An Interview With Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, Co-founder of Peerage of Science
Peerage of Science’s Janne-Tuomas Seppänen discusses their new peer review offering for authors and journals.
UPDATED — 73 Things Publishers Do (2013 Edition)
An updated version of the “60 Things Publishers Do” list, recognizing a baker’s dozen of contributions provided via comments, other Chefs, and a changing world.
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Peter Brantley on Annotating the Web
Peter Brantley of Hypothes.is talks about efforts to bring an open layer of annotation to the Web, and what they mean for scholarly communication.
Open Access "Sting" Reveals Deception, Missed Opportunities
What can be learned from John Bohannon’s investigative study of open access publishers?
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: If It Isn't Disruption, What Is It?
Three Scholarly Kitchen chefs talk about the uses and misuses of the term “disruption” in describing what’s going on in the scholarly publishing market.
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Peter Binfield on PeerJ
Peter Binfield talks about progress at PeerJ since the innovative OA journal’s launch, and where the journal is headed.