Learn how predatory journals are identified, and why journal ‘watchlists’ and ‘safelists’ have their own pitfalls.
A recent survey provides insights into the attitudes and motivations of reviewers. Can the findings help to improve the peer review process?
Find out more about how disproportionate care loads, exacerbated by the pandemic, are impacting women’s ability to participate in scientific publishing.
Two articles explore how the use of metrics has enabled the evolution of new types of scientific fraud, including citation manipulation.
Researchers identify flaws in current COVID-19 research and publication processes, and provide solutions using Open Science principles
Get up to date with the key improvements in research recognition, including information on contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) and updates to ORCID.
Find out how to get involved with this year’s activities examining trust in peer review.
A recent BMJ editorial discusses the benefits and risks of the use of preprints during the current coronavirus pandemic.
COVID-19 has had an unprecedented global impact. Now, a Digital Science report asks how the research landscape has adapted to these extreme circumstances.
Publishers show enthusiasm for preprints by allowing transfer from preprint servers to submission sites and by integrating preprint platforms into manuscript submission workflows.
Mathematical model highlights the arbitrariness of peer review and finds that more innovative papers are less likely to be selected for presentation.
Kyle Siler describes the complexities of differentiating predatory and non-predatory publishing.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
Publons data show many predatory journals enlist scholars to perform peer review – young researchers should be particularly wary.
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?