Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
buildingblogsofscience.wordpress.com | ||
| | | | |
ferniglab.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | The so-called "sting" by Science on Open Access journals has brought a lot of criticism, some of this is here, and here. For me the best has been Micheal Eisen's post, which uses satire to show that Science was well wide of the mark. As the discussion dies down on the subject, I have had... | |
| | | | |
journals.plos.org
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] This page details the post-acceptance workflow for authors submitting to PLOS journals, including steps for editorial and formal acceptance, final checks, peer review history publication, author proof review, and press release guidelines. | |
| | | | |
michaelschoon.com
|
|
| | | | | Recently an article in Science surveyed open access journals and found a number of distressing findings with respect to the peer review process. An overview is available at:http://www.scidev.net/global/publishing/news/sting-exposes-wild-west-of-open-access-publishing.html?utm_content=bufferb2a6d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer The original version in Science is at:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full As the Science article acknowledges, the same results could be found if we did a survey of traditional journals as... | |
| | | | |
svpow.com
|
|
| | | In opposition to my speech supporting the motion "the open access movement has failed", here's what Jessica Polka said in opposition to the motion. The open access movement has not failed. It is in the process of succeeding. Indeed, over 50% of papers are now open access. And this proportion is set to increase,... | ||
