A farewell to 2015, and some thoughts on why our culture has, in an age of abundance, slowed down so much.
A centuries old genre of publication — can it inspire tomorrow’s book?
It’s easy to think that scientific ethics are straightforward and that results that aren’t robust end up in the literature because some people give into the temptation to cheat. The reality is more complex. If you were in this situation, what would you do?
The musical “Hamilton” raises questions about history and historical practice that reflects what scholars are and aren’t doing.
Steven Pinker discusses a better model for more effective prose, particularly for academic authors.
When it comes to information, we’re all drinking from the firehouse. This month we asked the Chefs: How do you find time to stay informed? (and maybe to read for pleasure occasionally as well)
Alison Mudditt presents a guest post from Julia Kostova and Patrick Alexander that asks questions about how information is vetted in the digital age, and what role scholarly publishers will continue to play.
Please join me in welcoming a new Chef to the Kitchen.
Last week ORCID published the results of its first major survey. Around 6,000 respondents globally – ORCID record holders and non record holders – provided feedback on their perceptions and understanding of ORCID. Find out what they said…
Robert Harington discusses Joe Esposito’s Scholarly Kitchen article from June 2015, entitled “The Mixed Marriage of For-profit and Not-for-Profit Publishing”, in context of his own experiences in the world of society publishing.
A look at the winners in this year’s Nikon Small World imaging competition.
Library-based publishing is growing. A recent survey in Australia shows that “increasing visibility of the university brand” is a common objective. Charlie Rapple considers some of the challenges relating to brand for this growing sector.
Of the many ways to measure the quality of a publication, one that is often overlooked are the workings of the marketplace itself. Purchases for published material is made in large part on the basis of the quality of that material, making the marketplace something of an editor of genius. This mechanism incorporates all other metrics, from impact factor to altmetrics. Unfortunately, the marketplace is not free to exercise its judgment when many participants seek dominant and even monopolistic control.
The broad online availability of theses and dissertations creates difficult tensions between the individual rights of authors, the rights of educational institutions, and the responsibilities that both have to global scholarship and the collective good. How can we resolve those tensions?
Researchers claim that PMC boosts citations by 26%. A closer look at the paper reveals serious data and analysis problems. Can we collectively design a better study?