Post-Publication Peer-Review Already Exists, Already Has Incentives, and Is Already Robust
A recent exhortation to support post-publication peer-review with awards shines a light on the holes in both ideas.
"I Want" Doesn’t Get — Just Recommending Data Archiving Isn’t Nearly as Effective as Requiring It
Data archiving is becoming a new normal for scientific publishing, but a recent study shows you need to do more than just ask for it.
Editorial Spoofing in the Age of Electronic Peer-Review
In a story of the modern age of fraud, spoofers find their way into peer-review rosters, reviewing their own papers or those of their friends/competitors.
Authors Aren't Scientists, Scientists Are Authors — Why Catering to a Role Can Inhibit Robust Publishing
“Author-service” journals sound like a straightforward proposition, but when you contemplate how authorship is a minority activity by a minority of practicing scientists and science practitioners, it becomes much less clear that author service is enough to support robust publishing practices.
Mapping the Flow of Rejected Manuscripts
A study of the flow of manuscript submissions reveals a highly structured and efficient network of scientific journals where peer-review plays a critical role in the improvement and slotting of papers.
Jury Duty — Putting Peer-Review Into a Tougher Context
When the stakes are scholarly, peer-review works well. What about when the stakes are life-altering?
Are Scientists Themselves to Blame for Exaggerated Claims in Science Journalism?
A new study ties problems in abstracts to subsequent exaggerations in the media — but it’s not the big journals that are the major sources.
The Reproducibility Initiative — Solving a Problem, or Just Another Attempt to Draw on Research Funds?
A new initiative seeks to solve the reproducibility problem in science, but instead seems to be creating more of a drag on research funds, ignoring the incentives of scientists, and raising barriers to its very utilization.
In Praise of Peer Review – A Personal Perspective
When there’s a lot at stake, peer review still helps to separate the best information from the rest.
The Referee Who Wasn’t There: The Ghostly Tale of Reviewer 3
The power and identity of Reviewer 3 springs from the shadows to ensnare the unwanted paper. But is it really a powerful spirit? Or just Dad in a mask?
A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do
An attempt to list a bunch of things journal publishers do. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.
Why Do We Allow Poor Science to Guide Policy?
Science policy is often guided by poorly-constructed and highly biased survey results. Shouldn’t we demand more?
The Hitler Meme Hits Peer Review and Having His NIH Grant Application Rejected
Two funny videos of processes in scientific life which many of us can use a good laugh about. Warning — Hitler, unsurprisingly, swears like a sailor when he’s frustrated. The peer review send-up: And, if you want more, there’s the […]
Publishers — What Are They Good For?
Time for your input for a session at the upcoming SSP Annual Meeting — pose your questions now!
Crossing the Rubicon — Is the UK Going to Enable Open Access for All Taxpayer-Funded Research by 2014?
The UK Government Science Minister articulates a plan for open access and open data for UK research. The implications aren’t clear, but the intentions are.