Last week ORCID published the results of its first major survey. Around 6,000 respondents globally – ORCID record holders and non record holders – provided feedback on their perceptions and understanding of ORCID. Find out what they said…
Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox.
The publication experience of authors may come down to a single factor: was the manuscript accepted?
Today’s students and early career researchers and professionals will be critical to the future success of our scholarly societies and associations. How well are they being served at present and how can we ensure their support in future?
A recent survey of authors by Taylor and Francis reveals growing acceptance of open access publishing; however, Creative Commons licensing may still pose a problem.
Peer review, journal reputation, and fast publication were selected by Canadian researchers as the top three factors in deciding where to submit their manuscripts, trumping open access, article-level metrics, and mobile access, a recent study reports.
When novel, newsworthy results are discovered to be wrong, is that still news?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
Initiatives like Rubriq will succeed if they address the real needs of authors, reviewers, and editors. Take the survey and tell us what you think.
A call to participate in a survey on how books are discovered and ultimately purchased. The survey is being conducted in cooperation with O’Reilly Media.
Open access publishing is a viable option, with gold OA gaining traction. But concerns remain, and funding is uncertain.
Publication rewards productive scientists but has the unintended consequences of isolating scholars, reducing knowledge transfer and steering scientists away from engaging in policy and the press.
Full of experimental biases and important omissions, what can be learned from the Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) survey of scientists?
Should institutional open access repositories be run like journals?
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.