Peer. Review. Two simple words, but join them up and you have one of the most crucial and heavily discussed areas of the journal publishing world.
Publishers and editors want evidence and the ability to test assumptions when making strategic decisions about the direction of a journal or programme. Data visualisation delivers faster, deeper insights and better answers to questions about the health of a journal programme.
Publishers are natural content marketers—while other industries must generate new content to be successful “content marketers,” publishers already have a treasure trove of it and create more every day.
But scholarly and professional publishers have traditionally seen themselves as content curators and nurturers, not content marketers. Much of their staff were—or still are—scholars and professionals in their respective fields, after all.
When you visit the doctor with a worrying symptom, or take your sick dog to the vets, you assume that the practitioner you consult is basing his diagnosis and treatment decision on the best available evidence, and not just on a quick Google search. After all, the pace of progress and change in scientific research is rapid, and it may be some years since your doctor did her training.
Open Access has transformed academic publishing. A majority of the world’s academic publishers follow a hybrid model for at least some journals; around 43% of academic content published in the UK is Open Access. The rising tide of OA content brings its own challenges, none more significant than how the broadest possible audience can find quality, peer reviewed open research.
From the Journal Impact Factor to the latest altmetrics, scholarly players are crying out for metrics to be used responsibly, reports Rebecca Pool
Nine industry figures give Tim Gillett the low-down on recent developments in discovery as part of the research process