Send us a link
PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, PLOS Computational Biology, PLOS Genetics, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases and PLOS Pathogens have all revised their ‘scooping’ policy to waive the novelty criteria for work submitted within six months of a similar study having been published.
Due to precautionary measures in regard to the coronavirus, the second day of this year's Open Science Conference got canceled. Luckily, the panellists Johanna Havemann, Anne-Floor Scholvinck, Daniel Spichtinger and August Wierling agreed to submit their opening statements as a blog post.
A rebuttal to the opinion piece in Stat News, "A fiasco in the making?"
What if libraries agreed to continue paying the subscription fees to journals that they were already subscribing to, only the journals flipped to open access?
We should be nurturing the kinds of publishing cultures we want to see: those that value the labour needed to care for publishing and that work in harmony with research communities rather than extract from them, argues Samuel Moore.
By Rick Anderson, President of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
More than 800 PLOS articles have already been published with accompanying peer review history, transforming options for transparency in the assessment process.
The deal, which is expected to close in early 2020, further cements Ex Libris as the leader in the library systems marketplace and can be expected to put added pressure on OCLC.
Andy Stirling describes a new project aiming to help science and innovation serve global goals.
Every five minutes or so, someone tries to come up with a cost-per-article figure for academic publishing. Martin Paul Eve explains why he finds himself wanting to resist the temptation.
Many researchers still see the journal impact factor (JIF) as a key metric for promotions and tenure, despite concerns that it’s a flawed measure of a researcher’s value.
i recently applied for the editor in chief position at Psychological Science. i didn't get it, but i got far enough to be asked to write a vision statement, responding to eight prompts.
Interactive and reproducible repositories powered by Zenodo and Binder.
A couple of years ago, psychologist Susan Fiske launched a broadside against science bloggers - since taken offline - packed with name-calling.
The Open Library of Humanities has demonstrated a model for high-quality open access publishing, without Article Processing Charges. We asked Chief Executive Officer Martin Eve whether the Library could serve as inspiration for Learned Societies in a post-Plan S world.
Open Knowledge for Latin America and the Global south (AmeliCA) is pleased to be part of this initiative that furthers an open, scalable, long-lasting scientific infrastructure that seeks to spread its benefits worldwide.
Almost every academic article starts with a literature review. However, although these short research summaries can be beneficial they also introduce opportunities for unverifiable misrepresentation and self-aggrandizement.
There are a couple of angles to look at researcher conflict of interest from. One is that a conflict could distort their work, tilting findings and claims away from "the truth". The other is for the way the work is received, not how it is done: authors' perceived conflicts could damage credibility. How does this translate to authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses? Are the issues the same, no matter the type of study? I've been thinking about that a lot lately. I was one of the external stakeholders consulted as part of the Cochrane Collaboration's review of its conflict of interest policy for their systematic reviews editorial teams. As they explain, they are looking to strengthen their approach to financial conflicts, and "consider a wider range of possible inherent biases". In biomedicine at least, systematic reviewers/meta-analysts are widely seen as arbiters on the state of knowledge. Their work often guides individual decisions, policy, and funding. I think that
As the publishing arm of the University of California system, UC Press supports the UC libraries in their cancellation of the Elsevier "big deal" package. As small to medium-sized publishers of largely humanities and social sciences (HSS) journals, university presses (including UC Press) have had to compete for diminishing library resources to support our publishing programs.
Open Access mega-journals have in some academic disciplines become a key channel for communicating research. In others, however, they remain unknown. This article explores how authors’ perceptions of mega-journals differ across disciplines and are shaped by motivations associated with the multiple communities they function within.
Reporting results from a comprehensive survey of publishers in the German-speaking world, Christian Kaier and Karin Lackner explore the attitudes of smaller publishers towards open access, finding …
When the year began, the world's largest academic publisher, Elsevier, had increased their annual profits, with an operating profit approaching US$1.2 billion in science, technology, and medicine - a profit margin of over 36%. By year's end, a hefty chunk of the world's research community was walking away from big subscription deals with Elsevier and others.
Despite the position being billed as a stepping stone on the way to tenure-track academic employment, many postdocs, discouraged by their poor prospects, are questioning their career choices and instead looking to non-academic jobs as an alternative. However, as Chris Hayter and Marla A. Parker reveal, making this transition is not as easy as it might first appear.
Getting the most out of your Google Scholar profile, creating some old-fashioned table of contents alerts, and simply setting aside time to periodically review key journal titles will ensure you rarely miss out on important research.
Ensuring we focus our definition of success around valuable contributions - instead of around the final output - would recognise and reward good research and researchers.
When you look ahead on your career path, do you see nothing but open road to be traveled, or is there a big brick wall in your way that feels insurmountable?
The spate of high-profile cases of fraudulent publications has revealed a widening replication, or outright deception, crisis in the social sciences. To Marc Spooner, researchers “cooking up” findings and the deliberate faking of science is a result of extreme pressures to publish, brought about by an increasingly pervasive audit culture within the academy.
The active use of metrics in everyday research activities suggests academics have accepted them as standards of evaluation, that they are “thinking with indicators”. Yet when asked, many academics profess concern about the limitations of evaluative metrics and the extent of their use.
