Scholarly publishing needs a scalable, easily adopted, and industry-wide approach to the problem of author manuscripts including citations to articles in fraudulent journals.
Breaking News Today: Following Clarivate’s public listing and a high level reorganization, Web of Science Group CEO Annette Thomas is departing
We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round!
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.
Continuing our celebration of Peer Review Week 2019, today Alice Meadows interviews Tracey Brown, OBE, Director of Sense about Science, which has been involved in Peer Review Week from the start.
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.
The Washington Post looks at the long history of vaccine skepticism.
Quality means different things to different people. How do you think different stakeholders would define quality in peer review?
On the eve of a peer review seminar in Australia, Alex Christopher interviews CSIRO’s Andrew Stammer and Publons’ Tiago Barros on the current state of 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.
Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives and a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles.