Cascading Peer-Review — The Future of Open Access?
BMJ Open is marketed as high-volume journal of rejects. Did BMJ miss on marketing or is this the future of open access publishing?
Does Rejecting Papers Amount to More Than Just a Transaction Cost?
The expenses publishers incur rejecting papers and book proposals are about more than filtering.
Ouroboros and Peer Review: New Proposals Continue to Chase Their Own Tails
Can social reputation metrics provide a meaningful incentive for researcher participation in peer-review and online commentary?
Liquid Journals or Lazy Journals — Can Technology Alone Make a Journal?
A “new” approach to making a journal smacks of old thinking, and is essentially inflammatory and naive.
Are Peer-Reviewers Overloaded? Or Are Their Incentives Misaligned?
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
Privatizing Peer Review — The PubCred Proposal
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system?
When Solutions Take On a Life of Their Own
What happens when a proposed solution for a problem becomes an end unto itself? Is peer review really more important than research itself?
Post-publication Review: Is the Dialog of Science Really a Monologue?
It has never been easier to post a comment to a scientific article. Just don’t expect an adequate reply from the author — or one at all — according to a new study.
The “Burden” of Peer Review
Do the benefits of peer review outweigh the work involved? How does post-publication review stack up in comparison?
Good God! Can’t a Journal Author Have Any Fun Anymore?
An article’s authors and a journal’s editor are surprised when a puff-piece backfires. Thanks for the pretentious seriousness, blogosphere.
Ending the Supplemental Data “Arms Race”
Supplemental data undermine scientific integrity by undermining the peer review process.
Left-handed Cancer, Box Springs, Scientific American, Branding, and Credibility
When brands, credibility, and trust all stumble, what is an increasingly weary public supposed to think?
The RIN Report on Researchers and Web 2.0: If You Build It . . . Well, You Know the Rest
The Research Information Network’s new report on researchers and Web 2.0 offers a similar set of results to previous studies: uptake is relatively low, and the trustworthiness and quality of online resources are suspect. The report offers contrary evidence to common myths about “digital natives” and some useful advice for anyone looking to build social media.
Post-Publication Review: Does It Add Anything New and Useful?
Post-publication review is spotty, unreliable, and may suffer from cronyism, several studies reveal.
Cups, Buckets, Pools, and Puddles: When the Flood of Papers Won’t Abate, Which Do You Choose?
When most papers submitted ultimately get published, and in an age driven by pooled philosophies and practices, are we already participating in a “filter failure” of immense proportions?