Send us a link
Initiative "supports Springer Nature's broader commitment to research transparency and open sharing".
Peer review is crucial for academic communities to ensure high-quality research. Drawing on 39 semi-structured interviews, the study investigates how reviewers for three publishing outlets in psychology experience the tension between community responsibility and various priorities of a more individual kind.
Unverifiable researchers are a harbinger of paper mill activity. While journals have clues to identifying fake personas, there isn’t a standard template for doing so.
Authorship plays a central role in the credibility and career progression of academics. Yet as Joseph Mellors and Stroma Cole argue, restrictive authorship practices risk perpetuating inequalities and sidelining important contributions to knowledge.
Five developments that illustrate how the relationship between sustainability and scholarly publishers is changing over time.
Analysis finds ‘implausibly high’ numbers of papers from many top scientists.
Fake papers are “poisoning the well” for these gold-standard syntheses, researchers say.
Clarivate has decided to continue indexing some content from eLife in Web of Science.
Bringing together a range of studies into various aspects of how preprints interact with the wider information ecosystem, Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Alice Fleerackers argue that the speed, accessibility and low barriers to entry that preprints offer to scholarly communication risk being undermined by attempts to make them more aligned to traditional academic publications.
Journal’s policy of publishing all reviewed submissions irrespective of quality conflicts with citation metric’s rules.
Scientists who spend time peer-reviewing manuscripts don't get rewarded for their efforts. It's time to change that.
