Risam argues that digital scholarship provides three challenges to peer review because of its collaborative, unfinished, and public nature.

In 2005, a group of MIT graduate students decided to goof off in a very MIT graduate student way: They created a program called SCIgen that randomly...

I’ve been writing a bit about peer review and its potential futures of late, an essay that’s been solicited for a forthcoming edited volume. Needless to say, this is a subject I’ve spent a lot of t…

Mark Lorch: Three and a half centuries after the first science journal was published, post-publication peer review is shaking up the old system

It is unlikely that there is any single objective measure of merit, so research assessment therefore requires new multivariate metrics that reflect the context of research, regardless of discipline.

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again - Volume 5 Issue 2

A flawed system for judging research is leading to academic fraud

Interesting proposal.

A compelling argument for peer review BEFORE experiments happen, not after.

Traditional pre-publication peer review of scientific output is a slow, inefficient, and unreliable process. Efforts to replace or supplement traditional evaluation models with open evaluation platforms that leverage advances in information technology are slowly gaining traction, but remain in the early stages of design and implementation. Here I discuss a number of considerations relevant to the development of such platforms. I focus particular attention on three core elements that next-generation evaluation platforms should strive to emphasize, including (1) open and transparent access to accumulated evaluation data, (2) personalized and highly customizable performance metrics, and (3) appropriate short-term incentivization of the userbase. Because all of these elements have already been successfully implemented on a large scale in hundreds of existing social web applications, I argue that development of new scientific evaluation platforms should proceed largely by adapting existing techniques rather than engineering entirely new evaluation mechanisms. Successful implementation of open evaluation platforms has the potential to substantially advance both the pace and the quality of scientific publication and evaluation, and the scientific community has a vested interest in shifting toward such models as soon as possible.

When the science you learned in school and the science you read in the newspaper don’t quite match up, the Meet Science series is here to help, providing quick run-downs of oft-referenced con…

As we stand on the brink of a new scientific age, how researchers should best communicate their findings and innovations is hotly debated in the publishing trenches.

The Professors

The "arsenic life" story in a nutshell: anarchic social web 1, traditional publishing 0.

Reedsy's destination for publishing freelancers. Includes resources for editors, designers, ghostwriters, and book marketers.