Listen to Alice Choi discuss traditional and new journal metrics in this new podcast from ISMPP.
Analysis of metrics for journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns highlights a need for clearer warnings on articles from such journals.
Metadata 2020 set out their principles for use of metadata in scholarly publishing, aiming to achieve richer, reusable, open metadata across research outputs.
Find out more about the TOP Factor, an alternative metric to the impact factor, evaluating academic journals based on open science policies.
The MAP newsletter considers the use of social media in scientific communications and the role of the medical publication professional.
Researchers continue to use the impact factor as a metric for their career progression, but is it a matter of misconstrued peer pressure?
An analysis of data sharing statements reveals that open data may lead to a citation advantage.
A recent preprint sheds light on just how volatile journal impact factors can be.
Depositing preprints on bioRxiv results in advantages in terms of citations and Altmetrics, according to recently published findings.
Authors of an article in Nature believe it is time to move beyond the journal impact factor and discuss what next-generation metrics should look like.
The ICMJE recently updated its recommendations, providing guidance on issues such as use of preprint servers, conflict of interest reporting and journal metrics.
The fifth edition of the STM report provides an in-depth review of current issues and recent trends within the scientific and scholarly publishing industry.
Researchers at Nature uncover the world’s most hyperprolific authors and question our understanding of scientific authorship.
We consider if enough value is placed by academic institutions on efforts to communicate science to the public.
How can journal growth affect impact factor and what can be done to avoid it?
The Publication Plan team presented their own research at this year’s ISMPP meetings.