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?
PLoS ONE: Is a High Impact Factor a Blessing or a Curse?
PLoS ONE’s relatively high impact factor may compromise its ability to support PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.
STM Association Spring Conference: Are Publishers Listening?
The first day of the Spring STM Conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was filled with ideas, different perspectives, and an interactive crowd.
Is OUP’s “Anti-Google” Just a Half-Million Words of Filter Failure?
The OUP has launched Oxford Bibliographies Online, hoping to filter major fields down to a high-quality, peer-reviewed reference kick-start. But does a wordy filter actually filter in the networked world?
Improving Peer Review: Let’s Provide an Ingredients List for Our Readers
We describe many aspects of studies, but “peer reviewed” is a generic label for a multitude of recipes. Maybe we should start listing what went into it.
Controversial Math Journal Relauches: New Editors, Focus on Rigorous Review
Publisher relaunches journal with new editorial board and scope, and a renewed focus on rigorous review.
Let’s Make Open Access Work
Let’s put aside all the controversy about open access publishing and come up with an OA plan that will work.