“This is not every journal article ever written, but it’s a lot,” Malamud says.
It’s comparable to the size of the core collection in the Web of Science database, for instance.
Malamud and his JNU collaborator, bioinformatician Andrew Lynn, call their facility the JNU data depot.
No one will be allowed to read or download work from the repository, because that would breach publishers’ copyright.
In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and Java Script.
Carl Malamud is on a crusade to liberate information locked up behind paywalls — and his campaigns have scored many victories.
Of course, depending on the research field, some of these criteria may be more or less relevant.
Conclusion In this blog post, I have discussed why reviewing papers is important, how to review papers, and talked about what a reviewer should do and not do. If you think that I forgot something important or if you have some interesting story, please post it in the comments below.
In fact, in academia, the publisher typically earns money by selling the papers that are written and reviewed for free by researchers (for typical non open-access and free journals), which is a strange model but it is how it works. Now that I have explained why reviewing papers is important.
I will present some criteria that a reviewer should use in general to evaluate a paper.