Mary Miskin offers an interview with Prof. Dr. Liying Yang, Director of the Scientometrics and Research Assessment Unit at the National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, who manages the Early Warning List and the CAS Journal Ranking.
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.
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.
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?
A world famous scientist and university president brought down by a student journalist’s investigative reporting. But the big story is how we fund and reward ethical research.
Wiley’s Jay Flynn discusses the impact that paper mills had on Hindawi’s publishing program and how all stakeholders must collaborate to address behaviors that undermine research integrity.
Christos Petrou takes a look at the Guest Editor model for publishing and its recent impact on Hindawi and MDPI, as Clarivate has delisted some of their journals.
Danny Kingsley suggests that research integrity begins with the training researchers receive at university. Achieving Open Research and increasing reproducibility requires systematic research training that focuses specifically on research practice.
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
In the global supply chain of scholarly communications, we share a responsibility for accurate metadata that represents the publication lifecycle — from preprint to version of record, and everything in between.
Roger Schonfeld argues that openness and politicization together have enabled public trust in science to erode. And science is insufficiently trustworthy. The scholarly communication sector must not ignore this situation.
In today’s post, Alice Meadows interviews Jodi Schneider of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign about the work she’s leading to reduce the inadvertent spread of retracted research.
Today’s guest post is a recap of the recent SSP webinar, Ask the Experts: Trust in Science, with Tracey Brown (Sense About Science), Richard Sever (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press), and Eefke Smith (STM) by the moderator, Anita de Waard (Elsevier).
Publishers have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures?
Despite controversies, MDPI has flourished and are now the 5th largest scholarly publisher in the market. Christos Petrou offers an analysis of their enormous levels of growth.