It is still quite a new phenomenon in scientific publishing, but the idea behind it is simple. When submitting your article online, you would like to know how many people have read it, how many people are talking about it, their opinions and whether your work is important to them. Altmetrics gives you the answer, as well as an opportunity to find out which articles are widely disputed in your field, and could therefore be of significance to you. Moreover, there are also some people who believe that altmetrics could replace the Impact Factor and even peer review. The altmetrics […]
If you would like to publish a paper in Open Access model there are two paths to choose from. One – you can publish in Green Open Access, which means adding the paper to a specially prepared repository (self-archiving). Two – you can choose the Gold Open Access model and submit your article to an Open Access journal, where it will be corrected, peer-reviewed then published. Some notes about advantages and disadvantages of both ways you can find here. At this point I would like to briefly describe how to publish a paper in Open Access journal for those who […]
The importance and editorial requirements with regards to peer-review are commonly discussed by scientists, specifically so in the context of Open Access. The question I have been busy with recently (bothering as many journal editors as I could reach): “Does OA journal need editors and what is the role of them in whole process?” yielded a firm conclusion: Open Access journals and books need peer-review. Full stop. It doesn’t mean, however, there is a consensus on how the peer-review process should be like in the Open Access environment? Is the current process of peer-review for articles and books sustainable? A […]
Every year an increasing number of books and journals are published in Open Access, and there is little doubt that it has become a significant part of the world of science. Still, Open Access is facing many problems – one of which is the editorial quality.
One of the supposed conflicts in academic publishing is ensuring quality reviewed research in an environment of rapid scientific exchange. Traditional peer review, for instance, is a prime example of scientific quality: it allows for the dissemination of knowledge to pass through a filter of peers that self-regulates the suitability of a paper for publication. Despite not being perfect, it is currently accepted as the best system we’ve got, but one major stumbling block is the speed of publication – for anyone who has submitted a paper, the peer review process can be excruciatingly slow (to the point of competing […]
If someone were to ask me what I was most excited about in terms of future developments, then it would almost certainly be the Hypothes.is project: Hypothes.is Intro from Hypothes.is on Vimeo. In short: it’s the ultimate editor and peer reviewer all rolled into one. At the moment, we work very much in a top-down system, but Hypothes.is operates on a statistical logic: it is a distributed comment system that follows a reputation-based model. After all, everyone has their own specialist knowledge and this will allow you to apply that knowledge in areas where it is useful. We often see in […]