There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Emory Professor and journal Editor in Chief Gary Miller offers a long term view of the scholarly literature and offers thoughts on the important values worth preserving in the shift from print to digital.
Revisiting a post from 2011 that called for evidence for a better understanding of access to the research literature.
The Scholarly Kitchen turns five this month. How time flies when you’re having fun.
There are specific contributing factors to confusion and coherence. Understanding these, as well as your own strengths and weaknesses, can help you write, read, and edit better.
In the follow-up to “What Are STM Publishers Doing Wrong?” we explore what STM publishers are doing right. It’s an impressive list.
The first of a two-part series, today we review a long and complicated list of things STM publishers are doing wrong. Tomorrow, we’ll explore the opposite question — what are STM publishers doing right?
Funders — corporate, governmental, and philanthropic — have different priorities, yet they are now reaching into scientific publishing, wearing OA as a glove that fits. This post explores the problems this is creating and might create if allowed to perpetuate.
In this first part of a three-part series, the intrusion of governments into scientific publishing is contemplated — its causes, current state, and possible effects.
Representing data graphically is always tricky. It doesn’t help when a journalist misses many opportunities to verify the data, provide context, and ask some probing questions.
For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific progress (or, since “progress” is a value-loaded term, a model of how science progresses). It has implications for certain issues related to scientific publication, so I thought […]
Science policy is often guided by poorly-constructed and highly biased survey results. Shouldn’t we demand more?
The growing perception that science is built on sand demands not only some new incentives, but also an understanding that science is not always easy — or possible — to replicate.
The two Requests for Information recently put forth by the federal government require a realistic set of responses, and hint at some changes in attitudes and approaches.
Rebuttals are cited less, don’t change citation patterns for original papers, and generally fall flat. And you thought science was self-correcting?