Stick to Your Ribs: A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do
Revisiting an attempt to list the things journal publishers do.
The Relationship Between Research and Publication, Or Why Libraries Should Buy More First Books Than Any Others
Publication in the humanities and social sciences isn’t the reporting of research. It’s the production of a compelling argument, based on a combination of research and interpretation.
Austerity Research — When Ideology and Polemicism Overwhelm Facts and Logic
An economics paper’s failings in substance and pre-publication and post-publication processes holds many lessons, not the least of which is about the poisonous environment of discourse we have allowed to form.
Are We In a Rut? Explaining the Increasing Homogenization of Scholarly and Scientific Publishing
The Internet promised a revolution, but we may have only deepened our rut as a number of factors have combined to constrain innovation and change our customer focus.
The Limits of Crowdsourcing in the Scientific Disciplines
Social networking and crowdsourcing have attributes that may make them both incompatible with the goals and process of science. Can we accept that?
Convenience versus Community — Is a Deeper Question Hiding Behind the Façade of the Access Debates?
While the access debates have dominated, another debate has been emerging, one that perhaps has greater significance in the long run.
Seeking Acceptance at F1000 Research — Early Problems With Identity and Outsourced Authority
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.
More Review Costs More — The Dynamics of a Complex and Varied Expense for Journals
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review.
How Rigorous Is the Post-publication Review Process at 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.
Open Access — Idealism and Realism Remain Difficult to Reconcile, Survey Says
A survey of multiple scientific and academic domains about open access publishing provides an interesting snapshot, but fails to provide much actionable data as it conflates too many areas into one.
Do Uninteresting Papers Really Need Peer Review?
Do papers reporting null results or confirmational results need to go through the same process as papers reporting significant and novel results? Or do they require only passing a perfunctory editorial review?
Rewarding Reviewers: Money, Prestige, or Some of Both?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
Validation vs. Filtration and Designation — Are We Mismarketing the Core Strengths of Peer Review?
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science.
Privatizing Peer Review — A Short Survey
Initiatives like Rubriq will succeed if they address the real needs of authors, reviewers, and editors. Take the survey and tell us what you think.
An Interview With Keith Collier, Co-Founder of Rubriq
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.