Institutional Repository Study Is Recast in UK Political Light
How a publisher study of institutional repositories is used against those who created it. Continue readingPubMed Central Reduces Publisher Traffic, Study Shows
PubMed Central reduces article downloads from 14 biomedical society websites when articles are made freely available after embargo. Continue readingCan F1000 Recommendations Predict Future Citations?
Expert ratings have poorer predictive power than journal citation metrics, study reveals. Continue readingDo Uninteresting Papers Really Need Peer Review?
Do papers reporting null results or confirmational results need to go through the same process as papers reporting significant and novel results? Or do they require only passing a perfunctory editorial review? Continue readingRewarding Reviewers: Money, Prestige, or Some of Both?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in! Continue readingPrivatizing Peer Review — A Short Survey
Initiatives like Rubriq will succeed if they address the real needs of authors, reviewers, and editors. Take the survey and tell us what you think. Continue readingNetherlands Heart Journal Editor Delivers Dutch Citation Treat
Editors have learned how to exploit a simple loophole in the calculation of the Impact Factor. Is it time to close that loophole? Continue readingOnline Reviews of Doctors — Scant, Volatile, and Overwhelmingly Positive
When trusting the wisdom of the crowds, it’s important to understand what is meant by “crowd.” Continue readingHow Much of the Literature Goes Uncited?
Making sense of non-events (citation, circulation, and publication) requires context and a tolerance for uncertainty. Continue readingWhat’s In a (Journal) Name?
The name of a journal extends far beyond what it publishes. United brands (Nature, JAMA, Cell, Science, IEEE, PLoS) create powerful signals in the marketplace. They can also be overextended. Continue readingPhil Davis | The Scholarly Kitchen