Scientific journal

This tag is associated with 14 posts

Can An Algorithm Outperform Science Editors?

Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper! Continue reading

Exaggerated Claims — Has “Publish or Perish” Become “Publicize or Perish”?

A recent study finds that academic press offices exaggerate claims in their press releases about published research. Worse, the vast majority of these find their way into subsequent reporting. Continue reading

Stick to Your Ribs: A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do

Revisiting an attempt to list the things journal publishers do. Continue reading

CC-Bye Bye! Some Consequences of Unfettered Reproduction Rights Become Clearer

Authors should not be surprised when their open access articles show up in surprising places. Is it possible to embrace open access with some restrictions? Continue reading

Validation vs. Filtration and Designation — Are We Mismarketing the Core Strengths of Peer Review?

Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

The Problems With Calling Comments “Post-Publication Peer-Review”

There’s much more to making “post-publication peer-review” work, much less a valid form of peer-review. Rebranding comments and letters isn’t sufficient. Maybe it’s time to recognize over-reach. Continue reading

Will Open Data Solve Peer Review Concerns?

All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

Does Reviewing Your Peers Create Better Results Than Peer-Review?

National Academy of Sciences members contribute the very best (and very worst) articles in PNAS, a recent analysis suggests. Is diversity a better indicator of success than consistency in science publishing? Continue reading

An Old-Age Problem Among Reviewers?

Are older reviewers more cursory in their reviews? A study by the editor of the Annals of Emergency Medicine suggests as much. Continue reading

Peer Review Survey 2009

Providing incentives to reviewers may be key to improving the peer review process. Continue reading

Back to the Future: The On-line Scientific Journal

“I have seen the future, and it doesn’t work.” — John Senders, pioneer of the electronic journal Continue reading

Citation Controversy

A new study shows conflicting results over whether scholars are citing fewer papers. Is science becoming more elite or more democratic? Continue reading

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

December 2016
« Nov    
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.