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!
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.
Stick to Your Ribs: A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do
Revisiting an attempt to list the things journal publishers do.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Will Open Data Solve Peer Review Concerns?
All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends.
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.
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?
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.
Peer Review Survey 2009
Providing incentives to reviewers may be key to improving the peer review process.
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
Citation Controversy
A new study shows conflicting results over whether scholars are citing fewer papers. Is science becoming more elite or more democratic?