Send us a link
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding.
Scientists incentivised to publish surprising results frequently in major journals, despite risk that such findings are likely to be wrong, suggests research.
Peer reviews created by self-generated text machines are the latest threat to scientific integrity.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is suing predatory journal publishing company, OMICS Group, for hiding fees and deceiving researchers. It's a first for the largely unregulated industry.
As a researcher who gets such severe criticism, you have to go through the 5 stages of grief...
Dr. Joerg Heber has been appointed Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE.
It is useful to consider the trajectory of both scientific and literary publishing on the grid-group plane defined by Mary Douglas which arranges attitudes along two axes: one ranging from the hierarchical to the egalitarian, and the other spanning individualistic to communitarian. I would contend that, in both cases, there has been a move from the hierarchical/communitarian quadrant towards the egalitarian/individualistic zone.
‘SmartFigures Lab’ is a prototype online publishing website with enhanced data presentation capabilities. The site results from the integration of SmartFigures, an open source application of the EMBO SourceData platform, with Wiley’s Content Enrichment Framework and research & development environment.
In this Perspective, Thomas C. Südhof describes some of the current challenges to the peer review system that have endangered public acceptance of science and discusses possible avenues to addressing these challenges.
A few hours ago, 50 months after Elsevier submitted a patent application for an “Online peer review system and method” the patent was awarded to the company.
UC Davis and CDL Investigation of the Institutional Costs of Gold Open Access
A system of academic endorsement based on blockchain technology would be decoupled from the publication process, which would allow expeditious appraisal of all kinds of scientific output in a transparent manner without relying on any central authority.
There needs to be a transparent and openly recorded submission and review process.
Currently, there is no record of previous submission of a paper to other journals and the comments it might have received in the journey to the final publication. A paper that might have been rejected by three or four journals goes into press, and people hear about the results without any of the background scientific debate and conversation that led to this publicatio.
We present a deeper view of our 2015 financials, covering publishing and non-publishing expenses. As part of our ambition to change how science publishing works, especially among highly selective journals, we hope that being transparent about our costs will help to set a future course for research communication that is efficient and sustainable.
Authorea, a new collaborative tool, could revolutionize scientific authorship
The tricks and teases academics use to entice their readers: clichés, the Bard and the phrases of the moment.
How much German universities and research organisations spent on open access publication fees.
Study showing open access papers have a 50% greater citation advantage than articles behind paywalls.
The much-maligned practice of “double-dipping,” in which a publisher received revenue from both subscriptions and APCs, is likely to remain with us for some time.
A mission-based, independent publisher standing for fairness and return approximately 25% of revenue to the research community.
How to manage the research-paper deluge? Blogs, colleagues and social media can all help.
The impact factor is a poor measure of a journal's quality, and academics say it should either be overhauled or done away with entirely.
How do you edit Barack Obama? The Chronicle spoke to the editor in chief of a journal that published the president’s article on the future of health-care reform on Monday.
The goal being to avoid contributing further to the inappropriate focus on journal IFs.
Analysis finds citation rankings can be very misleading.
Wellcome Trust looks to save money and time communicating the research it funds.
Research papers in the life sciences have become increasingly dense, potentially making them harder for reviewers to understand.
APCs are priced to reflect what the market will bear, which may or may not having anything to do with actual cost, since the “journal’s editorial and technical processes” are only one factor in the overall pricing.
