A proposal for a community site to review author experiences at various journals suggests the need for a new player in the trust economy of journals. Continue reading
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
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
Incomplete signals in the scholarly publishing marketplace create problems for every participant. What is the path forward? 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
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
While the access debates have dominated, another debate has been emerging, one that perhaps has greater significance in the long run. 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