Read the original article in full on F1000Research: The jury is out: a new approach to awarding science prizes.

An Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.

This article provides broadly applicable guidance on software citation for the communities and institutions publishing academic journals and conference proceedings.

This article provides a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving.

The citation count of journals discontinued for publication concerns increases despite discontinuation and predatory behaviors seemed common. This paradoxical trend can inflate scholars’ metrics prompting artificial career advancements, bonus systems and promotion. Countermeasures should be taken urgently to ensure the reliability of Scopus metrics both at the journal- and author-level for the purpose of scientific assessment of scholarly publishing.

Read the original article in full on F1000Research: Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review

Diversity, transparency, and reliability are essential principles to ensure that a proliferation of metrics does not distort the scholarly communication system, but leads to more granular and transparent assessments

League tables predominantly reward measures of research output, such as publications and citations, and may therefore be promoting poor research practices by encouraging the “publish or perish” mentality. The authors examined whether a league table could be created based on good research practice. 

In the 21st Century, research is increasingly data- and computation-driven. Researchers, funders, and the larger community today emphasize the traits of openness and reproducibility. In March 2017, 13 mostly early-career research leaders who are building their careers around these traits came together with ten university leaders (presidents, vice presidents, and vice provosts), representatives from four funding agencies, and eleven organizers and other stakeholders in an NIH- and NSF-funded one-day, invitation-only workshop titled “Imagining Tomorrow’s University.” Workshop attendees were charged with launching a new dialog around open research – the current status, opportunities for advancement, and challenges that limit sharing.

The workshop examined how the internet-enabled research world has changed, and how universities need to change to adapt commensurately, aiming to understand how universities can and should make themselves competitive and attract the best students, staff, and faculty in this new world. During the workshop, the participants re-imagined scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era, to uncover new opportunities for universities to create value and serve society. They expressed the results of these deliberations as a set of 22 principles of tomorrow's university across six areas: credit and attribution, communities, outreach and engagement, education, preservation and reproducibility, and technologies.

Summarizing the literature on predatory journals, describing its epidemiological characteristics, and extracting empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals.

Article covers basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use Open Peer Review to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.

Proposing a fundamental change in the way that scientific training and its professional landscape are viewed.

Journal editors should be able to ensure that authors are given useful feedback on the language and writing in submitted manuscripts. Journal editors should be able to deal effectively with inappropriate text re-use and plagiarism.

This article describes the use of qualitative research to explore the peer review process used for awarding grants to ten multi-national natural science research consortia

On the role of different stakeholders on how to collectively improve the process of scholarly communications not only for preprints, but other forms of scholarly contributions.

Peer review decisions award >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved.

An evidence-based review.

A systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions.

Free online tools for networking, data sharing and measuring research impact.

Examining the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and comparing these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system.

Choices researchers can make to stop exploiting themselves and discriminating against others.

While deceptive publishing remains an ongoing issue, particularly in the developing world, increasing public engagement, development of OA policies, and discussion of sustainable and ethical publishing practices can remove this potential threat.

Recommendations from the Future of Research Chicago Symposium.

An evidence-based review