FORCE11 and COPE release recommendations on data publishing ethics for researchers, publishers, and editors.
In the global supply chain of scholarly communications, we share a responsibility for accurate metadata that represents the publication lifecycle — from preprint to version of record, and everything in between.
In today’s post, Alice Meadows interviews Jodi Schneider of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign about the work she’s leading to reduce the inadvertent spread of retracted research.
Today’s guest post is a recap of the recent SSP webinar, Ask the Experts: Trust in Science, with Tracey Brown (Sense About Science), Richard Sever (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press), and Eefke Smith (STM) by the moderator, Anita de Waard (Elsevier).
With greater awareness of the foibles and failings of scientific publishing, weaker self-regulation systems, and a trend toward governmental regulation of funding, is external regulation of the scientific journals system now inevitable?
We’re in a thicket of stories proclaiming “science is broken” and that stealing articles isn’t stealing because, publishers. This cottage industry of journal bashing and science trashing has reached a crescendo. What drives it? And what more important stories are being missed in the maelstrom?
Simple things are often more complex than we initially think, and the push for faster publication may be an expensive and risky trend to follow too much further.
The digital world increases the need to distinguish good information from bad, and despite multiple approaches, we still have a patchwork approach — but more attention is being paid.
A retraction study hits some familiar conceptual problems, and a proposed retraction index runs into a deeper issue.
Even when a paper is retracted, free copies of articles still persist in institutional repositories and public websites. Authority for the accuracy of scientific record must keep pace with open access. Fortunately there is a solution.