This style of dancing takes such amazing body control, and it fits the music terrifically well. No film effects were used, but boy, does it look like they were in parts. It really starts getting amazing at about 1 minute. […]
“Historians may look back on September 28, 2011, as the day the book lost its bookishness.” – Nicholas Carr. When you throw in a smaller feature on the more disruptive basic Kindle — X-Ray — Carr is probably right.
If the Journal Usage Factor were run like an election, it would be a system where each party runs its own polls, hoards its own votes, provides no paper trail, and has the power to ignore any appeal.
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
Information tailored to the user requires identity services that are useful and trusted. Will Google+ create a new baseline standard? Whither ORCID? Why can one succeed while one might be doomed? And what might the world look like for scientists when these opportunities are captured?
Allowing authors access to anti-plagiarism software makes pragmatic sense when you consider the demands scientific journals place on authors for perfect English, the pressures of group authorship, and the incrementalism of most papers. Perhaps it could even do more.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.
The Scholarly Kitchen has been around for nearly four years now (3.5, so I’m rounding up). During that time, the initial design proved useful and quite durable. We created a brand with the lovely graphics, and featured blogging, micro-blogging (via Twitter), and robust discussions. But having so many great posts, many published a day after each other, showed us there was room for improvement.
How well do citations predict Nobels? With an ever-expanding roster of eligible candidates, the going is getting tougher.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
Taxpayer access to US federally funded research results need not involve publishers giving away their product. An alternative mechanism is available, one that is already partially implemented. It is called the research report. Demands for free access to taxpayer funded […]
When publishers don’t employ foresight, they find themselves with challenges to their businesses, often from unexpected directions. Innovation is an imperative.
It has become fashionable to rally against the elitism of journals and their editors. An economic argument for why we still need them both.
A pleasant way to celebrate Friday.
PLoS turns its first surplus. What will this mean for an organization accustomed to acting like the rebel?