About us | About Scoope | Contact us

 Sponsor Links
| Articles | White Papers | Presentations 

Articles                                                                                                  TOP

Chemists like to experiment, just not with opening peer review

Skeptics say that no one knows whether peer review is really broken because it has not been studied enough. They need a change in the incentive system to improve reviews themselves by rewarding overworked reviewers for participating. Many chemists are skeptical. They think the traditional peer review system is working well, or at least well enough. Only a handful of the hundreds of chemistry journals have experimented with new peer review paradigms, compared with dozens in biology and medicine. And surveys have shown that chemists are among the scientists least likely to support changes to peer review.
Click here

Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing

The academic publishing system has become corrupted. Top journals in all fields have daunting backlogs of articles awaiting review. Hence new commercial publishers have emerged, seeking to capitalise on the situation with little understanding of, or concern for, the quality of what they publish. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in predatory journals claiming to publish peer-reviewed content when they do not. Between this rapidly growing group of predatory journals and the small group of elite quality academic journals is a new group of serious journals seeking to establish themselves with blind peer review as their quality control mechanism. However, it is becoming more difficult to distinguish new, but good journals, from predatory journals.
Click here

Widespread plagiarism detected in many medical journals based in Africa

African medical journals have a plagiarism problem. A study that looked at nearly 500 papers in 100 Africa-based journals found that 63 percent contained some form of plagiarism. The study, published in BMJ Open by researchers based in South Africa, Croatia and the UK, sampled the papers from African Journals Online (AJOL), a database that aims to boost the visibility of journals from the continent. They randomly selected five papers published in 2016 from each of the 100 journals - fewer for journals that did not publish five articles that year. They ran the final sample of 495 papers through plagiarism-checking software. The study also found that only 26 of the 100 journals had a policy on plagiarism posted on their website, and a mere 16 stated that they used plagiarism software. The authors say that this points to a 'major problem with writing and publishing in medical science in Africa.' The numbers are higher than those found in comparable studies for other regions.
Click here

European funders detail their open-access plan

Plan S, the contentious plan that a group of European science funders hopes will end scholarly journals' paywalls, has fleshed out its rules, and softened its tone a bit. The seven page implementation guidance outlines three ways researchers can comply with Plan S, which is backed by national funding agencies of countries including the UK, France, and Austria, as well as private funders including the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation. They can publish in an open-access (OA) journal or platform. They can also publish in a subscription journal provided they also make a final, peer-reviewed version or accepted manuscript immediately available in an OA repository. Finally, contrary to earlier indications, grantees will be permitted to publish in hybrid journals, which charge subscriptions but also offer an OA option, but only if the journal has committed to flip to a fully OA model.
Click here

Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

The academic publishing business model is indefensible. Practically everybody - even the companies that profit from it - acknowledges that it has to change. And yet the status quo has proven extremely resilient. The latest attempt to break the mould is called Plan S, created by umbrella group cOAlition S. It demands that all publicly funded research be made freely available. When Plan S was unveiled in September, its backers expected support to snowball. But only a minority of Europe's 43 research funding bodies have signed up, and hoped-for participation from the US has failed to materialise.
Click here

For banner ads click here