A spirit of collective enterprise in scientific research is being replaced by a rush to assign precise credit for who did what.
A glimpse into the not-so-glamorous lives and habits of scholarly-journal editors.
With a little help from your friends, you can understand which reviewers have been helpful and which should be ignored.
Here are two things that journal editors would prefer you didn’t know about your manuscript.
Also in our weekly roundup of the best Chronicle conversations: Saying no to service and advice on applying for an NEH grant.
Also in our weekly roundup of the best Chronicle conversations: Summer faculty meetings.
And they almost always will in suggesting revisions.
That’s the best you can do if you can’t afford to breach journal paywalls.
How to proceed when reviewers disagree, and other advice.
Here’s what the revise-and-resubmit process looks like from the inside.
Our authorship custom is a decades-old chassis that does not befit today’s turbocharged collaborative scientist.
Here’s why that’s probably a bad idea.
Some hortatory advice for writers.
Also in our weekly roundup of the best Chronicle conversations: Rebounding from a reference faux pas.
Negative feedback hurts. The trick is learning to take it in stride.