The future of academic publishing

[1]  Amber Dance.  Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off , 2023, Nature.

[2]  Chris Woolston.  Measuring societal impact: how to go beyond standard publication metrics , 2023, Nature.

[3]  S. Parikh,et al.  Striving towards true equity in global health: A checklist for bilateral research partnerships , 2023, PLOS global public health.

[4]  Juan Pablo Alperin.  Why I think ending article-processing charges will save open access , 2022, Nature.

[5]  C. Neylon.  Stop misusing data when hiring academics , 2022, Nature.

[6]  Diego de Las Casas,et al.  Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens , 2021, ICML.

[7]  C. Chambers,et al.  The past, present and future of Registered Reports , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.

[8]  B. Aczel,et al.  A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review , 2021, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[9]  David A Scott,et al.  Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice , 2021, PloS one.

[10]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers , 2021, Nature.

[11]  T. Morrison,et al.  Turning the tide of parachute science , 2021, Current Biology.

[12]  B. Brembs,et al.  Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. , 2021, F1000Research.

[13]  G. Boulton.  Opening the record of science: making scholarly publishing work for science in the digital era , 2020, Septentrio Conference Series.

[14]  Grace Binion,et al.  A Guide to Posting and Managing Preprints , 2020, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.

[15]  M. Syed,et al.  Easing Into Open Science: A Guide for Graduate Students and Their Advisors , 2020, Collabra: Psychology.

[16]  Anne M. Scheel,et al.  An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports , 2020, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.

[17]  S. Mallapaty.  Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles , 2020, Nature.

[18]  Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo,et al.  Worldwide inequality in access to full text scientific articles: the example of ophthalmology , 2019, PeerJ.

[19]  Jairo Buitrago Ciro,et al.  Predatory journals: no definition, no defence , 2019, Nature.

[20]  S. Abimbola.  The foreign gaze: authorship in academic global health , 2019, BMJ Global Health.

[21]  H. Debat,et al.  Plan S: take Latin America’s long experience on board , 2019, Nature.

[22]  Richard Sever,et al.  Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates , 2019, PLoS biology.

[23]  M. Siedner,et al.  Advancing equitable global health research partnerships in Africa , 2018, BMJ Global Health.

[24]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[25]  Serhat Kurt,et al.  Why do authors publish in predatory journals? , 2018, Learn. Publ..

[26]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles , 2018, PeerJ.

[27]  D. Moher,et al.  Stop this waste of people, animals and money , 2017, Nature.

[28]  John Van Reenen,et al.  Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? , 2017, American Economic Review.

[29]  R. Primack,et al.  Increasing geographic diversity in the international conservation literature: A stalled process? , 2016 .

[30]  Gideon Nave,et al.  Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics , 2016, Science.

[31]  David B. Allison,et al.  Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors , 2016, Nature.

[32]  M. Farhadi.  Iran, science, and collaboration , 2015, Science.

[33]  S. Haustein,et al.  The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era , 2015, PloS one.

[34]  Richard Smith,et al.  Firm action needed on predatory journals , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[36]  Björn Brembs,et al.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[37]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data , 2011, Nature Methods.

[38]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[39]  Sara Schroter,et al.  What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? , 2008, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[40]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[41]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[42]  Nicky Agate.  Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication , 2019 .

[43]  Eduardo Aguado-López,et al.  AmeliCA: A community-driven sustainable framework for Open Knowledge in Latin America and the Global South , 2018 .

[44]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..