Proud of you!As member of an editorial board of 2019's 5th most-cited academic publisher, I've agreed to attend a Geneva-based webinar in (what for me is) the early hours of the morning. If anything new and interesting emerges, I'll let you know. Cheers, Mike.
We'll be glad to hear!As member of an editorial board of 2019's 5th most-cited academic publisher, I've agreed to attend a Geneva-based webinar in (what for me is) the early hours of the morning. If anything new and interesting emerges, I'll let you know. Cheers, Mike.
Thank you Michael for sharing these infos…It was an interesting webinar. I ended up as member of a 60-person panel with a total attendance of nearly 3,000 scientists from across the world. The aim was to introduce and invite scientists to participate in the Frontiers CoronaVirus Knowledge Hub. The link provides access to 59 Research Topics relevant to the current pandemic with over 100 further topics under consideration. Although these Research Topics have only recently been opened, submissions with a fast-track refereeing process include nearly 2000 articles to date, with 155 accepted and 521 rejected on scientific grounds so far. The Hub contains lots more information on funding opportunities, webinars, expert commentary, opportunities for funders to find expert reviewers, etc. Everything to do with CoronaVirus is online at zero cost.
For people that want to access the most current refereed research at source, rather than filtered through journalistic channels, the Hub looks very good to me.
The Research Topics are by scientists for scientists, Nicolas. Not easy to fully understand outside one’s own speciality. But the advantages of having the articles open to everyone with Internet access is more democratic, invites more comment and discussion, and is more cost effective than the older model of ‘Printed journals in a university library’, where downloading a single article on the Internet might cost up to $50. The traditional model of refereeing also allows referees to hide behind anonymity. Sometimes reviewers want to approve or reject and article based on their own beliefs and theoretical orientation rather than the merits of the article itself. The Frontiers journals are more open with the names of the referees and editor made known to the authors and published alongside those of the authors. So if you disagree with the authors of an article, you know the names of people that approved it and can look up their credentials on an associated sub site called Loop.Thank you Michael for sharing these infos…
But well for me I'm afraid that it will a bit too hard to understand, I'll stay with my mask on the face
However I'm sure that Asher and some other ill be delighted to jump into…
Sorry for you James. Your tone and content merits no more than that.Do the soft headed liberal folk have an explanation as to why they are suffering from intellectual decay? What about the gigantic amount of self inflicted pain and suffering over a small scale virus.?