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).
Preprints play a crucial role in open science but offer an opportunity to be gamed. Fictitious authorship in preprints show that open science needs checks and we need to collaborate to govern Open Science.
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Dawn Durante of the University of Texas Press, looking at trust in peer review from the perspective of economics.
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Bahar Mehmani of Elsevier, who interviewed Professor Jeffrey Unerman about his work on the risks of self-referential peer review.
Chefs Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf tackle Peer Review Week 2020’s theme of Trust in Peer Review with this post on trust as both an ethic and a practice
Five months to go till the sixth annual Peer Review Week, a global celebration of the critical role peer review plays in scholarly communications. This year’s theme is trust — learn more in this post by Alice Meadows
Social license, in the context of research, is a form of public ‘approval’ that ensures research is funded, that its results are respected, and that participation is willingly engaged in, where needed. For many reasons, it seems as if researchers’ current social license is in danger of being revoked. Charlie Rapple explores what might be required to ensure it is renewed.
Here’s your 12 point guide to blockchain. Written for non-technically minded scholarly publishing folk
Expectations of free content are entrenched, but artists, authors, and publishers are all hurting because of it. The basic problem? It’s leading to a lack of trust in the future.
Alison Mudditt presents a guest post from Julia Kostova and Patrick Alexander that asks questions about how information is vetted in the digital age, and what role scholarly publishers will continue to play.
If the Internet created a burgeoning market of cheap academic journal knockoffs, should we be surprised to witness new knockoff ratings companies?
At a time when more research articles are more readily available to more readers globally than ever before, it’s crucial we are confident that those papers meet the highest standards and, that on those occasions where they don’t, there is a sound system in place to revise or retract them. So what can we do to make the publishing process more sound?
A new poll finds that trust in scientists and science journalists is fairly low. But are the two questions separable when it comes to the general public?
The digital world increases the need to distinguish good information from bad, and despite multiple approaches, we still have a patchwork approach — but more attention is being paid.
Purchasing artificial trust and reputation on the Internet has never been easier or cheaper. What does this mean for metrics-based evaluations?