Scholarly publishing needs a scalable, easily adopted, and industry-wide approach to the problem of author manuscripts including citations to articles in fraudulent journals.
From the Peer Review Congress, what’s changed and what’s about to change? John Sack conducts an interview with the Executive Director and Co-Director of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.
And we’re off! Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf kick off the fifth annual Peer Review Week with their thoughts on defining quality in peer review principles and practices.
Quality means different things to different people. How do you think different stakeholders would define quality in peer review?
How does scholarly communications benefit from coopetition, the cooperation of competitors? Come see what the Chefs said and tell us your thoughts!
If publishers truly are service providers, then better care should be taken in setting up journal submission guidelines and formats. This guest post by Mriganka Awati shares author feedback on the frustrations with the current submission processes and offers solutions for consideration.
The systems of research and scholarly communication contain a lot of redundancy. This is a good thing.
Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? This post by Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and offers suggestions for closing the gap.
The idea of starting over with new peer review management system can make you break out in a cold sweat. Karen Stanwood offers her experience and lessons learned for those considering making a move.
Despite the near consensus about the popularity (or lack thereof) of commenting on academic articles, there is surprisingly little publicly available data relating to commenting rates. To address this, a team of academics from the Universities of Sheffield and Loughborough have recently published research into article commenting on PLOS journals. Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield and Peter Willett report here on their findings.
Invisible to most readers of scholarly content is the editing process. In this post, Angela Cochran and Karin Wulf explore the role and processes for journal editors from two very different disciplines– History and Civil Engineering.
SSP’s Annual Meeting is upon us soon. What goes into putting together a scholarly communications conference?
Christine Tulley discusses how the academic publication lifecycle has undergone radical changes over the past several years. These changes have a significant impact on how scholarship will be written, published, promoted, and read in the future.