This is the sixth year I’ve rounded up the year in open access – and it was the most remarkable. When the year began, the world’s largest academic publisher, Elsevier, had increased their
I don’t recall hearing it before. But I’ve heard the slogan “high value, low wastage research” a lot the last few days. And I think this one is more than just a catchphrase.
It can be a long, unrewarding slog to unpack the problems in a published paper. David Allison and colleagues talked about 18 months of their experience trying to get the record on 25
“Learn what they don’t want you to know.” That pretty much captures the conspiracy-laced journey into data you often see at the heart of campaigning against a vaccine, doesn’t it? It’s the sub-title
A couple of heavy-duty battering rams have hit the journal subscription system in Europe. And they are so big, this will likely set off a chain reaction that changes the scholarly communication system
It should never be a rushed afterthought. An awful lot is riding on the quality of scientific abstracts. Most readers will rely on that summary, delving in no further. And a conference abstract,
What should scientific editors be able to do well? We would all be able to agree easily on some basics. Last year, a group led by David Moher and colleagues came to a
Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could well be true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source that’s used to support the claim is generally DOAJ – the
There’s a sort of Godwin’s Law for discussions on open peer review. Sooner or later, someone’s going to say, “We can’t expect early career researchers to sign peer reviews, because of fear of retaliation”. And that’s
All those “Reviewer 2″s – can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em! So how can we improve both the quality of “the scientific literature” and the role of peer review in it?