About us | About Scoope | Contact us

 Sponsor Links
| Articles | White Papers | Presentations 

Articles                                                                                                  TOP

Journals weigh up double-blind peer review

Some researchers have long worried that manuscripts submitted for publication are judged not on the quality of the work but on the reputation of the author submitting it. Although authors are rarely told who is reviewing their work, reviewers generally are informed of whose papers they are evaluating. But last week an article in Conservation Biology revealed that journal would be considering 'double blind' peer review - in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed knows the other's identity. Double-blind peer review is common in the humanities and social sciences, but very few scientific journals have adopted it.
Click here

Academic publishers draft and release their own Open Access licences

Creative Commons (CC) has been working really well for open access, so why is STM creating their competing versions? In a policy environment that is seeing more and more requirements towards open access, this act seems to be an attempt by the academic publishing industry to stop the meteoric rise of Creative Commons content by providing a competing set of licences that would initially appear to fulfil the OA requirements set by funding bodies and governments.
Click here

Incentivizing Peer Review: The Last Obstacle for Open Access Science

The alternative vision - of "open science" - has two key properties: the uninhibited sharing of research findings, and a new peer review system that incorporates the best of the scientific community's feedback. Several groups have made progress on the former, but the latter has proven particularly difficult given the current incentive structure. The currency of scientific research is the number of papers you've published and their citation counts - the number of times other researchers have referred to your work in their own publications. The emphasis is on creation of new knowledge - a worthy goal, to be sure - but substantial contributions to the quality, packaging, and contextualisation of that knowledge in the form of peer review goes largely unrecognised.
Click here

Academics Anonymous: scientific publishing is a licence to print money, not the truth

For scientists, a publication in the big three is basically a licence to print money. Easily impressed by journals' respectability, the funding bodies throw cash after the big name authors, mistaking their talent for storytelling for great science. In the end, science publishers, combined with eminence- and applicability-obsessed funding agencies, have created a rather unhelpful climate for dishonest and greedy scientists to thrive in.
Click here

The Future of Book Publishing - some predictions

The rate of change means that the future remains highly uncertain, but then, as the cyberpunk writer William Gibson commented, 'The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.' Gibson's point is well made. The trends that will determine the future are here today. Making predictions about that future really comes down to a judgement about how those trends are going to play out.
Click here

For banner ads click here