The Scholarly Kitchen
Latest Post
Impact Crater — Does DORA Need to Attack the Impact Factor to Reform How the It Is Used in Academia?
A new declaration to improve research assessment practices shoots wide of the mark and reveals some misunderstandings on behalf of many of those involved. Continue reading
Today's Specials and Featured Items
We’re officially in the age of online petitions, which may be taking the place of actual activism. Is that an improvement? Continue reading
Another publisher sues a librarian for opinions expressed on a blog. This time, the publisher is demanding $1 billion in damages and $10,000 for having to write the threatening letter in the first place. Continue reading
The Internet promised a revolution, but we may have only deepened our rut as a number of factors have combined to constrain innovation and change our customer focus. Continue reading
The Scholarly Kitchen proudly announces its podcast. Happy listening! Continue reading
Incomplete signals in the scholarly publishing marketplace create problems for every participant. What is the path forward? Continue reading
More on the shake-up at PLoS — how rare these types of departures are, why a board might make such a move, and how unsatisfactory every scenario but the most obvious becomes once you begin to run scenarios. Continue reading
More internal PubMed Central emails show quite clearly that PMC is wasting taxpayers’ money solving problems publishers have already solved. Continue reading
PLoS has announced the departure of both its CEO and CFO, but has provided no explanation of what led to the management change. PLoS should explain the situation to all its shareholders. Continue reading
Social networking and crowdsourcing have attributes that may make them both incompatible with the goals and process of science. Can we accept that? Continue reading
When a popular and iconic product is ended, the outrage doesn’t match the pragmatism and agility we all espouse. TOC’s end is one such example. Continue reading
A few months ago, I assigned a book to my senior managers — Charles Duhigg’s “The Power of Habit.” They smiled wanly as they accepted the books, prepared to slog through a business book with little bearing on their real lives. We were all pleasantly surprised — the book turned out to be more interesting … Continue reading
There is a predictable path for society publishers as they explore their options. Their programs may be under pressure today, leading many of them to seek alliances with large commercial firms, though many societies are unhappy to do so. Continue reading
Eighteen years ago, Mosaic ushered in the potential for a sea-change in publishing based on technological prowess and scale. Today, the “open” label covers a set of disparate incentives under a single blanket, one that funders, government, and technology companies are all under, each for its own reason. Continue reading
The OSTP access memorandum has led to hearings this month. Be sure to contribute and observe. Continue reading
While the access debates have dominated, another debate has been emerging, one that perhaps has greater significance in the long run. Continue reading
A meeting about annotation services and software shows how new tools may be on the horizon, and reminds us that our audiences are likely to be the heaviest users once these emerge. Continue reading
The recent policy promulgated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy is likely to have the unintended consequence of putting further budgetary pressure on libraries. Continue reading
Articles are published before they’re reviewed; doubts about a paper are viewed as a positive status; papers only need to contain “science;” review and revision can continue forever; and PubMed Central is their certifying entity. Welcome to the world of F1000 Research. Continue reading
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review. Continue reading
Editorial boycotts and declarations of independence generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown. Continue reading
Elsevier acquires Mendeley, changing the game significantly, perhaps for most of us. Continue reading
PubMed Central reduces article downloads from 14 biomedical society websites when articles are made freely available after embargo. Continue reading
A meeting between librarians, publishers, and society leaders reveals common concerns and the ways in which roles are overlapping and mingling. Continue reading
Comparing the length of post-publication peer reviews in F1000 Research to those done pre-publication in four major medical journals shows authors are less likely to receive constructive or substantial criticism with F1000 Research reviews, despite a highly academic reviewer pool. Continue reading
Who will be the winners and losers in the world of MOOCs? It may be that the decision by prominent universities to partner with online venues may undermine their own activities. Continue reading
OA mandates like the RCUK mandate seem to have aspects that actually put the burdens of OA on the academics, universities, taxpayers, and scientists they were meant to help. Continue reading
While many technologists continue to demand a publishing revolution, the precepts of such a revolution are already incorporated into the strategic thinking of most publishing companies. To further the adoption of more digital practices, what is needed are practical solutions that are expressed in dollars and cents. Continue reading
The OSTP public access memorandum provides flexibility across many US federal agencies. The possible complexities combined with current budget realities mean there is much to tame and little to spend doing it. Continue reading
Attacks — both overt and covert — from OA advocates and NIH/NLM phantoms come in the wake of the posts revealing how eLife and PubMed Central coordinated activities and kept secrets. Continue reading
Circumstantial evidence has become direct evidence — that eLife requested publication in PMC; that PMC collaborated with eLife; that PMC sought to conceal its preferential treatment; and that systems and processes at the NLM regarding PMC inclusion are unclear and open to abuse and misuse. Continue reading
Authors
Stewart Wills
Alice Meadows
Ann Michael
David Crotty
David Smith
David Wojick
Joseph Esposito
judyluther
Michael Clarke
Rick Anderson
Phil Davis
Kent Anderson
Tim Vines
Todd A Carpenter
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
......................................
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
Authors
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
......................................
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
