Get expert advice to help you get published!

You are here

Publication Buzzwords

From the earliest days of the printing press to speedily disseminating scientific knowledge online through open access journals, academic publishing has come a long way. What are the most important topics of discussion in scholarly publishing today? Stay tuned to this section to know more about the buzzwords in the scholarly publishing industry: journal impact factor, scientific paper retraction, research impact metrics, and more.
Irreproducibility: Is the lack of an accepted definition a problem in itself?
Irreproducibility is one the most widely discussed topics in the scholarly circles. While it is common knowledge that there is a crisis of reproducibility, finding a way around it has proved to be difficult, primarily because there is no commonly agreed definition of the term.
Academic publishing and scholarly communication: Good reads, June 2016
In June, most of the discussion in scholarly circles revolved around misconduct, corruption and credibility in science, the future of science communication, and of course, Brexit.
Research misconduct and need for author education
One of the most challenging problems that academia is dealing with is misconduct in research. However, tackling the ever-increasing incidents of misconduct is challenging because of the complexity of the issue. It is a big loss to academia if researchers indulging in less offensive misconduct are given harsh punishments such as suspending their services or taking away their grants. So how can academia tackle this situation? 
The impact factor and its impact today
Since 2012, scholarly publishing has seen a boom in useful discussions about alternative metrics; science for the public; and measuring research impact in terms of how it touches and improves people’s lives, how much it’s being discussed on social media, and how many lay people are aware of it. But what about the ground reality of how research impact is measured? This editorial puts forth some interesting perspectives on where the impact factor fits in academia today.
7 expert views on the impact factor
Many people are of the opinion that the impact factor is the ultimate measure of a researcher's success and journal's prestige. What do academic publishing experts think? Here, we bring you some excerpts from our interviews with industry experts who have expressed their views on the impact factor. 
Is the reproducibility crisis real? An overview of Nature’s survey
Irreproducibility of published results is considered a modern-day crisis that science is facing. However, the lack of a commonly agreed definition of reproducibility and the various opinions on what underlies the issue prompted Nature to conduct a survey.
What are preprints and why you should use them to diisseminate research
To circumvent the delays that are inevitable in the journal publication process, scientists these days post preprints of their articles. What exactly are preprints? Why do authors use them? This article introduces you to preprints and explains how they can facilitate research dissemination.
Combating new developments in academic misconduct
Traditionally the province of rogue individuals, academic misconduct has entered a new era in which third parties are exploiting submission loopholes to manipulate the peer review process. Consequently, authors should be aware that not all editorial service providers operate within the bounds of accepted ethical standards. In reaction, the editorial services industry is launching a new initiative to institute operational guidelines for editorial service providers.
Can self-retraction boost the efforts to correct the scientific record?
Retractions are central to academic publishing, but they have been too journal-centric and stereotyped. Therefore, researchers hesitate to disclose even honest errors in their papers for the fear of losing their reputation due to retraction. There have been discussions around making retractions more author-centric rather than it being a tool used predominantly by editors to announce misconduct. Would a self-retraction system motivate authors to step up and announce honest errors? 
Will Sci-Hub change the face of academic publishing forever?
Should access to academic research be free? In the past year, this seemingly moral issue took a legal twist with Elsevier suing the founder of Sci-Hub. This website which provides unauthorized access to almost all paywalled research papers has become the bone of contention between researchers and publishers.