Send us a link
A new survey provides an updated view of how and why researchers are using scholarly collaboration networks.
Does the closing of @AxiosReview portend the end of independent peer review, or just the wrong business model?
How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Investigation documents rogue editor's coercion of authors to cite his journal, papers.
Several services attempt to gather up “all” of the content across publishers. This post provides an overview and taxonomy.
Authors want to know about citations, downloads, and impact metrics. This post reviews common metrics and explores the limitations inherent in each.
For publishers, this moment of political upheaval has the potential to allow them to reboot their fraught relationships with libraries, universities, and scientists.
Meta, a data science company, has been acquired by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, whose aim is to accelerate the pace of scientific advances.
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
PIDapalooza, the first ever festival of persistent identifiers, set out not only to bring together the creators and users of PIDs, but also to make PIDs cool.
Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain “dumb luck.”
An interactive visualization of article publication data from the 2016 NSF Science & Engineering Report suggest discrepancies in the cultures of science around the world.
Are the Article Processing Charge (APC) levels set for high-end OA journals too low to be sustainable?
Citation network maps may indicate when gaming is taking place. Proving intention is a different story.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities.
Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?”
A new study from the University of California system confirms much of what we already knew about open access, particularly the increased financial burden it places on productive universities.
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 new “papers service” for social science content was recently launched and is capitalizing on concerns over the sale of a long time preprint server by a commercial publisher.
Why is it so frustrating and difficult to talk about scholarly-communication reform, and why do those conversations seem to involve virtually all members of the scholcomm ecosystem?
After hundreds of manipulated images were detected across 40 scientific journals, the real work will be to correct the scientific record.
If Thomson Reuters can calculate Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, why can’t they deliver a simple median score?
After many and long conversations among colleagues within and beyond the Scholarly Kitchen about what researchers need to know about scholarly publishing.
Scale can be achieved by broadly outsourcing the editorial process. Does this lead to a loss in quality control, and is this acceptable?
As an institution, science is not fond of privilege. Success in science is supposed to be the result of merit - hard work, tenacity and, to some degree, sheer luck - not nepotism, favoritism, or entitlement.
This year, 272 journals will receive their first Impact Factor. The JCR will also suppress 39 titles –29 for high rates of self-citation and 10 for “citation stacking”.
Researchers Reject Nature’s Fast Track Peer Review Experiment.
With so much new literature published each year, why are authors increasingly citing older papers?
The top 100 list of Altmetrics is fascinating for what it tells us about communication between scientists, the attention paid to science by the general public, and also for what it tells us about altmetrics themselves.
The proportion of federal research funding going to investigators older than 65 was greater than that going to researchers younger than 35, even if most Nobel recipients made their discoveries before they were 40 years old.
