A new study suggests that reference works can be created cheaply and effectively through only mildly organized collaborations. Have we been missing a critical contribution of peer-review? Does it suggest that post-publication won’t review won’t be very effective?
A problem in recruiting competent peer-reviewers may be the fault of email spam blockers, not the unwillingness of academics to review.
If submission fees result in a more sustainable business model, why are open access publishers opposed to the idea?
Do the benefits of open peer-review outweigh the costs? A BMJ study argues “yes,” but there are caveats.
Is there demand for open access journals in the social sciences and humanities? Or does Sage see opportunities in unspent equity funds?
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?
A write-up of a presentation at Charleston, here’s one way to parse trust in academic publishing.
A recent Atlantic article has cast doubt on high-impact medical research. But is the article accurate? Or is it biased itself?
Stating that open access journals publish papers with “sound methodologies” promotes an unrealistic view of the scientific process and a corrupted image of the editorial and peer-review process.
BMJ Open is marketed as high-volume journal of rejects. Did BMJ miss on marketing or is this the future of open access publishing?
The expenses publishers incur rejecting papers and book proposals are about more than filtering.
Can social reputation metrics provide a meaningful incentive for researcher participation in peer-review and online commentary?
A “new” approach to making a journal smacks of old thinking, and is essentially inflammatory and naive.
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system?