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?
Today, Roohi Ghosh officially joins us as a regular contributor in The Scholarly Kitchen.
Robert Harington provides a template for scholarly societies wondering how to grapple with the overwhelming and omnipresent prospect of an AI future.
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.
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
In today’s post Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf kick off a week of posts to celebrate Peer Review Week 2023 with their thoughts on peer review and the future of publishing.
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.
The Curse of Knowledge is when we assume everyone else understands what we’re talking about, when they don’t. Good communication happens when we have the courage to make it simple.
Inequities are rife in the research process, starting with the pre-award process. Based on feedback and input from researchers, research managers, and others a new report looks at the challenges and makes recommendations for how funders and institutions can address them.
Volunteer organizers reflect on SSP’s upcoming 2023 New Directions seminar — early bird registration closes September 8th!
Could the failure of a journal to visibly correct known errors in a publication, thereby propagating false information, be considered disinformation?