Ignorance As Argument — A Chemist Alleges Publishers Exploit Typography for Money
A chemist complains about publishers exploiting authors through typesetting controls, but fails to understand exactly what it is and why it’s important.
A chemist complains about publishers exploiting authors through typesetting controls, but fails to understand exactly what it is and why it’s important.
Nature (the journal) announces unwavering support for Gold OA on the same day Nature (the company) announces a major Gold OA partnership. But Nature (the journal) doesn’t itself adopt Gold OA. Why not?
The continued silence from major funders involved in the eLife-PubMed Central scandal is creating a noise all its own.
Remaining relevant requires action, and new research suggests it’s not too late for these actions to retain younger members, who remain interested in what professional and learned societies can and do offer.
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design.
Microsoft’s Surface RT marks the software stalwart’s entry into the hardware and tablet market. Too bad it’s late and awkward.
An electric car’s data versus a journalist’s experiences — and neither proves sufficient for the task of telling us exactly what happened.
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.
The public access policy for the OSTP is announced, and it is even-handed, realistic, designed for rapid implementation, and a sign that the OA movement has matured into one that can work collaboratively to move forward.
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
Two economists try to argue the case against patents. But their arguments are undercut by trite examples, a poor understanding of how patents look to inventors and investors, and a misreading of the evidence.
The Scholarly Kitchen turns five this month. How time flies when you’re having fun.
A reprint of an essay from 2008, which attempts to describe the evolution of open access publishing, Written before the astounding success of PLoS ONE, it outlines the link between open access publishing and the still-persistent traditional model.
Another bill designed to make taxpayer-funded research available raises old questions and familiar divides. Does it have a chance of generating a productive decision?
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science.