New data literacy and artificial literacy standards are necessary and emerging. The workflows and iterative mindsets the Digital Humanities can help inform our approaches.
New models are emerging for funding open access, which may serve to alleviate one of the publishing industry’s most problematic practices: Levying book processing charges on authors.
Today’s guest post is a recap of the recent SSP webinar, Ask the Experts: Trust in Science, with Tracey Brown (Sense About Science), Richard Sever (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press), and Eefke Smith (STM) by the moderator, Anita de Waard (Elsevier).
We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a guest post by Donald Samulack (Editage) and Jason Roberts (Origin Editorial), who call for a collective approach to developing definitive guidance on transparency in peer review for journals, authors, and reviewers.
To kick off Peer Review Week 2018, Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf — guest editors for this week — share their vision of the environmental requirements for a diverse and inclusive peer review ecosystem.
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in peer review. Learn what the four speakers at the September 12 PRW panel session on this topic think this means and why it’s important.
Thoughts on BioMed Central and Digital Science’s report on what peer review might look like in 2030.
The technology developed to create a crypto-currency may be used to solve two intractable problems in scholarly publishing: authenticating users and counting usage.
A conversation with COPE’s Charlotte Haug.
The pursuit of transparency and use of disclosures in place of actual ethics may be creating a culture of accommodation rather than one fostering independence. Where does transparency belong?
Purchasing artificial trust and reputation on the Internet has never been easier or cheaper. What does this mean for metrics-based evaluations?
All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends.
Do the benefits of open peer-review outweigh the costs? A BMJ study argues “yes,” but there are caveats.
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?