Peer Review - Information Matters

This paper highlights strategies for navigating interdisciplinary research challenges and turning criticisms into opportunities for growth.

Translation

December 1, 2022 Zhentao Liang

Higher Novelty, Longer Handling Process? Evidence from 700,000 Publications

In the field of Scientometrics (or Science of Science), whether novel ideas experience more difficulties in dissemination and adoption is of particular interest. Evidence has been found that highly novel papers and grant proposals often suffer from stricter scrutiny and are more likely to be negatively evaluated.

March 18, 2022 Jenna Hartel

Attention Doctoral Students: This Video Is for You!

How can doctoral students make theoretical and conceptual contributions to the literature of Information Science, which is especially competitive at the highest philosophical levels?

Education INFideos Multimedia

February 22, 2022 Jenna Hartel

Introducing the What Makes This Paper Great? Series at INFIDEOS

What Makes This Paper Great?, goes much deeper into the Information Science literature and lingers upon landmark papers.

Translation

January 20, 2022 Mengyi Sun

Does Double-blind Peer Review Reduce Bias?

Ideally, when work is evaluated by experts in the field, the process will filter out poor research, and identify and polish discoveries into real gems. However, a long-standing concern is reviewer bias, which broadly refers to evaluating scientific work not based solely on its quality.

Translation

December 30, 2021 Xiaotian Chen

Can Authors’ Emails (Personal vs. Work Emails) Be a Part of the Criteria in Evaluating Scholarly Journal Articles?

Today, with misinformation and disinformation that may spread more quickly than facts on the internet, there is also fake and questionable research published in scholarly journals.