Issues in Scholarly Communication

Kaiser, J. (2017, September 29). Are preprints the future of biology? A survival guide for scientists. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0747

Bourne, P.E., Polka, J.K., Vale, R.D., & Kiley, R. (2017). Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Computational Biology 13(5): e1005473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473

Marcus, E. (2016, June 3). Let's talk about preprint servers [Blog post]. CrossTalk. Retrieved from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/lets-talk-about-preprint-servers

Luther, J. (2017, April 18). The stars are aligning for preprints [Blog post]. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints/

Basken, P. (2018, March 4). Peer review in flux. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-Peer-Review-Be-Saved-/242660/

Crotty, D. (2010, August 31). The "burden" of peer review [Blog post]. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/31/the-burden-of-peer-review/

Neylon, C., Roberts, D.M., & Wilson, M.C. (2016, June 22). What do mathematicians think about their journals? Peer review quality tops list of stated issues [Blog post]. LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/06/22/what-do-mathematicians-think-about-their-journals-peer-review-quality-tops-list-of-stated-issues/

Powell, K. (2016, February 10). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature 530, 148-151. doi: 10.1038/530148a

Nguyen, V. M., Haddaway, N. R., Gutowsky, L. F. G., Wilson, A. D. M., Gallagher, A. J., Donaldson, M. R.,...Cooke, S. J. (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLOS ONE, 10(9): e0139783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139783.

Stern, V. (2018, January 4). After Elsevier knew an author faked reviews, it kept accepting his papers for more than a year [Blog post]. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from http://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/04/elsevier-knew-author-faked-reviews-kept-accepting-papers-year/

Vines, T. (2018, March 15). Peer review fails to prevent publication of paper with unsupported claims about peer review [Blog post]. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/03/15/a-comment-on-klein-et-als-comparing-articles-to-preprints/

Flaherty, C. (2017, September 19). Is retraction the new rebuttal? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/19/controversy-over-paper-favor-colonialism-sparks-calls-retraction

Fister, B. (2017, September 22). Pranking the academy [Blog post]. Library Babel Fish. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish/pranking-academy

Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2006). Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature04988

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Wladner, F., Mietchen, D.,...Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Reserach, 6: 1151. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review: A survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9: 169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169

Cohen, P. (2017, October 16). The next stage of SocArXiv’s development: bringing greater transparency and efficiency to the peer review process. LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/16/the-next-stage-of-socarxivs-development-bringing-greater-transparency-and-efficiency-to-the-peer-review-process/

McKenzie, L. (2018, February 8). PLOS pushes publication before peer review. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/02/08/plos-pushes-publication-peer-review

Matthews, D. (2016, March 16). Should academics be paid for peer review? Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/should-academics-be-paid-for-peer-review

Indexes preprints from arXiv q-bio, PeerJ Preprints, bioRxiv, F1000Research, preprints.org, The Winnower, Nature Precedings, and Wellcome Open Research.

A blog that tracks retractions and related issues in the scholarly literature.

An online debate from 2006 consisting of 22 articles with perspectives and analysis on peer review.

An archived blog on peer review from Nature. The blog was active from 2006 to 2010.