Send us a link
Today features an interview with Darrell W. Gunter, editor of the new book Transforming Scholarly Publishing With Blockchain Technologies and AI.
Joe Esposito revisits his 2012 post on the unstated theory of the e-book, which assumes that a book consists only of its text and can be manipulated without regard to the nature and circumstances of its creation.
More than 80% of scientific papers stemming from Horizon 2020 funded projects were published in open access journals, according to the European Commission in a new report.
Geographical inclusion in scholarly publishing needs to do more than just drawing the Global South closer to the Global North.
Article Attention Scores for papers don't seem to add up, leading one to question whether Altmetric data are valid, reliable, and reproducible.
This substantive work from John B. Thompson provides a historical overview and analysis of technological and legal challenges to publishing practices in the 21st century.
Learn how two early career publishers are tackling the thorny issue of pay equity and inclusion in today's interview with Rebecca Bostock (Ohio State UP) and Dominique J Moore (University of Illinois Press).
For smaller and independent publishers, the Transformative Journal route to Plan S compliance seems like a viable option. At least until you see the reporting requirements.
Turns out, digital transformation is actually more human than technical. Learn more in these case studies from Emerald and De Gruyter.
On July 4, 1971 Michael Hart posted the first ebook file on the ARPANET and transformed content distribution.
At a recent meeting, a debate was held on the motion: Preprints are going to replace journals. The author was asked to oppose the motion and this post is based on their arguments.
Why did a certain band eliminate brown M&M's from their dressing room? And what does that have to do with the formatting requirements at some journals? This article explains.
But critics worry the metrics remain prone to misuse.
Lots of things are wrong with paying for peer review.
In this study, a novelty indicator to quantify the degree of citation similarity between a focal paper and a pre-existing same-domain paper from various fields in the natural sciences is applied by proposing a new way of identifying papers that fall into the same domain of focal papers using bibliometric data only.
By bringing rigorous review and editorial oversight to clinical preprints, eLife hopes to make peer-reviewed preprints a currency of trust in medicine.
Scientific publishing needs to stop treating error-checking as a slightly inconvenient side note and make it a core part of academic research.
The nonsensical computer-generated articles, spotted years after the problem was first seen, could lead to a wave of retractions.
A mathematical model designed to forecast the success of biotechnology papers has drawn criticism from researchers.
Nearly 900 universities, research organisations, and funding agencies want science publishers to be more transparent and abide by open access rules, after scientists complained their submissions are rejected if they apply a public copyright licence to accepted manuscripts.
Academics suspect that papers with grabby conclusions are waved through more easily by reviewers.
An "XKCD" comic and its many remixes perfectly captures the absurdity of academic research.
A comparison of preprints and their final journal publications show discrepancies in results reporting and spins in interpretation.
Announcing the launch of five new journals, all addressing global health and environmental challenges and rooted in the full values of Open Science.
This post explores how scholarly publishing should relate to scholarly communication. Ostensibly aligned, publishing and communication have diverged. Some processes involved in scholarly publishing are getting in the way of optimal scholarly communication, as the present pandemic amply reveals.
As eLife transitions to exclusively reviewing preprints, we have integrated medRxiv into our submission process for the rapid sharing of new medical research.
Renke Siems on user tracking on science publisher platforms, its implications for their individual users and ways to face this issue
Tracking how factors such as biases and conflicts of interest creep into editorial boards requires better data.
Paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions by using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
The push to remove journal paywalls officially started this year. Here's how it works.
