Guest Post: A Plea for Fairer Sharing of the True Costs of Publication
Mariëlle Prevoo, Ron Aardening, and Ingrid Wijk from the Maastricht University Library suggest a more equitable model for open access publishing.
Guest Post — Everything* You Ever Wanted to Know about Conference Proceedings But Were Afraid to Ask
Alex Birukou from Springer Nature offers an overview of Conference Proceedings publication, and how they straddle the line between journals and books.
Is PLOS Running Out Of Time? Financial Statements Suggest Urgency To Innovate
The publisher is committed to financial sustainability. How it achieves it is an open question.
Fighting Citation Pollution — The Challenge of Detecting Fraudulent Journals in Works Cited
Scholarly publishing needs a scalable, easily adopted, and industry-wide approach to the problem of author manuscripts including citations to articles in fraudulent journals.
Guest Post — A Perspective from the Peer Review Congress
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.
How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer
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.
Quality is Multi-Dimensional: How Many Ways Can You Define Quality in Peer Review?
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.
Ask The Chefs: Peer Review Quality
Quality means different things to different people. How do you think different stakeholders would define quality in peer review?
Ask The Chefs: Competition And Cooperation
How does scholarly communications benefit from coopetition, the cooperation of competitors? Come see what the Chefs said and tell us your thoughts!
Guest Post — A Case for Universal and Simplified Journal Systems
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 Value of Redundancy in Research, or, In Research, Redundancy Has Value
The systems of research and scholarly communication contain a lot of redundancy. This is a good thing.
Two New Initiatives at eLife To Start the Eisen Era
Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
Balancing Author Satisfaction with Reviewer Needs
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.
Guest Post — Transitioning to a New Peer Review System: From Scary to Successful
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.
Guest Post – A Study of Commenting on PLOS Articles
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.