Over the past year, COPE has been busy evaluating what our priorities should be for the next three years. Collaboration is critical to COPE in all aspects of our work and to inform COPE’s strategy we gathered insights through a member survey, telephone interviews with people working with non-traditional publishing models, workshops with Trustees and Council Members, insights from conversations with our collaborative partnerships, and market research.
Ivan Oransky co-founder of Retraction Watch and Ed Pentz the Executive Director at Crossref join Trevor Lane to discuss the acquisition of the Retraction Watch database by Crossref. They talk about the benefits this brings to the community and how this partnership improves access to the data by authors, readers and publishers. The conversation moves on to the wider picture of researcher incentives and trust signals.
Looking forward into the new year, we see significant actions and opportunities before us. We know that we are stronger when we work together, and threats to the scholarly publishing industry are before us.
COPE’s Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee (F&I) is one of our most active services. When it was launched in 2010 its role was envisaged as dealing with complaints concerning member journals.
In Part 1 of this Commentary we outlined some of the problems, solutions, and tools facing peer review. In Part 2 we address perhaps the most lively area of debate on this topic at the moment: the role of artificial intelligence (AI).
We have become used to speaking about scholarly peer review with some scepticism. Critics note that it is subjective and therefore inconsistent, it can be slow, it tends to down-weight negative results, and it is increasingly susceptible to manipulation.