Send us a link
Scientific research is awesome-we read it, we build upon it, we innovate with it, and we love it. But the process of getting research from the scientists who spend months or years with their data to the academics who want to read it can be messy.
[3]A study at the University of Montreal shows that Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Sage now publish more than 50% of all academic articles. This number has been rising, thanks to mergers and acquisitions, from 30% in 1996 and only 20% in 1973.
JournalGuide brings all sources of journal data together in one place to give authors a simple way to choose the best journal for their research.
Chief scientific adviser Sir Mark Walport posits a future in which papers are revised as research matures, supplanting 'outmoded' publishing practices.
Has the traditional format of the science journal had its day? Dorothy Bishop outlines an alternative model, based on consensual communication.
Researchers Reject Nature’s Fast Track Peer Review Experiment.
[8]F1000Workspace offers scientists a comprehensive suite of software and services to write and collaborate on papers, annotate and share references and articles, as well as easily discover and save relevant new articles.
[5]Royal Society Open Science aims to tackle the biases in traditional formats.
Writing and reviewing journal articles is part of the core business of a scientist. But it’s not an efficient way to communicate research results.
ORCID has been awarded an 18-month, $3 million grant by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to develop the infrastructure and capacity to support international adoption and technical integration of ORCID identifiers.
Consumer-oriented websites allow researchers to compare the merits of scientific journals and review their publishing experiences..
Publications don't have to be successful immediately. This is shown by an article of Albert Einstein and colleagues that gained importance 85 years after having been published. By Anton Zeilinger.
The latest report on retracted publications in the PubMed database.
When researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant.
Much of our contemporary approach to publishing research began with the launch of that journal, but what does the future hold?
The exponential growth in the number of scientific papers makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of all the publications relevant to their work. Consequently, the attention that can be devoted to individual papers, measured by their citation counts, is bound to decay rapidly.
This month marks the 350th anniversary of arguably the first and longest-running scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions: Giving Some Accompt of the Present Undertakings, Studies, and Labours of the Ingenious in Many Considerable Parts of the World.
A controversial statistical test has finally met its end, at least in one journal.
It has taken a while, but the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (SAAS) have come out with a valuable booklet on authorships of scientific manuscripts. This recommendations, published now also as a special article in the Swiss Medical Weekly, aspire to serve as a practical guide for principal investigators confronted with the task of assigning authorships to the individuals contributing to scientific manuscripts.
Researchers are buzzing about a publication that accepts only 'brief ideas'.
Germany's Holtzbrinck, which owns Nature publisher Macmillan Science and Education, will combine the majority of its activities with BC Partners' Springer unit.
Four conditions that need to be satisfied for a document to be considered a citable piece of scientific work.
A large research university will pay between $3-3.5 million a year in academic subscription fees...
Scientific publishers must shake off three centuries of publishing on paper and embrace 21st century technology to make scientific communication more intelligible, reproducible, engaging and rapidly available.
Half of the papers appearing at the NIPS conference would be rejected if the review process were rerun.
The troubled present and promising future of scholarly communication.
While The Conversation is built around a journalistic model, there is a big growth in online, open-access journals each with different approaches to peer review.
Technology has helped so many industries evolve over the past few decades, but scientific publishing, surprisingly, has hardly changed since the first journal article in 1665.
Freedom of Information requests reveal substantial hikes in university outlay despite open access push.
Raw data from Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan's annual Author Insights survey.
