Can You Really Know Your Customer If You Only See Them One Silo At A Time?
Functional silos lead to customer data silos. Can you get a full view of customer engagement without re-architecting your whole organization?
Functional silos lead to customer data silos. Can you get a full view of customer engagement without re-architecting your whole organization?
The traditional “normal” in academia often lacks the richness and dynamism required for robust intellectual discourse and innovation. How can we cultivate a “personalized normal” that celebrates the uniqueness of researchers and empowers them to communicate their discoveries innovatively?
With yet another stumble from Twitter/X, Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and asks whether all the efforts journals have put into building and maintaining journal Twitter accounts have been worth it.
A mixed bag post from us — can you separate out the significance of research results from their validity? What will the collapse of the Humanities mean for scholarly publishing writ large? And a new draft set of recommended practices for communicating retractions, removals, and expressions of concern.
Are there enough reviewers though to meet demand and is the peer review process efficient enough to handle the sheer volume of papers being published? How can a combination of human expertise and AI make the peer review process more efficient?
Here I propose a framework for a Voluntary Contribution Transaction system to recognize the voluntary contributions in the scholarly workflow and to give tangible benefits to the volunteers.
A panel attending the 2023 AUPresses Meeting hosted a conversation about optimizing books metadata and measuring its impact on search experiences in the mainstream web.
The American Chemical Society is offering a new approach to funding open-access articles; Rick Anderson interviews Sarah Tegen about it.
Human-dependent peer review is inequitable, suffers from injustice, and is potentially unsustainable. Here’s why we should replace it (eventually) with AI-based peer review.
How do we strike a balance between humans and AI to improve peer review? We’ve interviewed a few publishing experts who specialize in human and AI ethical, equitable, and sustainable publishing solutions to share their thoughts on the future of peer review.
Our week of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2023 continues with an interview with Shaina Lange and Sue Harris of SSP’s DEIA Committee Outreach Subcommittee, about their work on a soon-to-be-published toolkit to build DEIA in peer review processes and editorial roles
In today’s Peer Review Week guest post, Joe Pold of PLOS interviews the senior editorial team of PLOS Computational Biology about their experience of mandating code sharing for the journal, and its impact on peer review
What is the single most pressing issue for the future of peer review in scholarly publishing? In advance of Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs.
Compared to their peak levels, publication volume has declined at MDPI by 27% and at Frontiers by 36%. What’s behind these declines, and how do they reflect the inherent risk in the APC open access model and different approaches to reputation management?
An interview with Nicola Ramsey of Edinburgh University Press about the Press’s new Open Access Fund.