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.
Providing incentives to reviewers may be key to improving the peer review process.
Access to the scientific literature by small and medium-sized businesses is good, although it could be a lot easier, according to a new report.
What do authors say when they are caught duplicating text and figures from another paper? More than you’d imagine!