Openness and Secrecy in Science — A Careful Balance
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
Stating that open access journals publish papers with “sound methodologies” promotes an unrealistic view of the scientific process and a corrupted image of the editorial and peer-review process.
BMJ Open is marketed as high-volume journal of rejects. Did BMJ miss on marketing or is this the future of open access publishing?
Free online books may increase discovery, but may not translate into increased sales or citations, a new study reports.
SSP IN conference ends with presentations of five new “dream e-Tools.” Will the panel of venture capitalists take the bait?
Successfully developing a new product often means understanding the interests of other stakeholders.
Harvard’s Paul Bergen: “The slow accretion of technology into the educational system is the result of the teacher and not the learner.”
ACRL’s Kara Malenfant to publishers: “Don’t think of librarians as those who hold the purse-strings, because that is not how librarians view themselves.”
“What we’ve called a ‘game’ has radically changed,” expressed Ariella Lehrer, president and CEO of Legacy Interactive, at the breakfast keynote talk at the 2010 SSP IN meeting. Lehrer, a 27-year veteran of the gaming industry, began her talk with […]
The keynote of the SSP IN meeting inadvertently raises a question — Is it possible to market new e-learning tools without blaming teachers or the educational system?
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system?
It has never been easier to post a comment to a scientific article. Just don’t expect an adequate reply from the author — or one at all — according to a new study.
Like ice-cream and murder, there is no causal relationship between reference length and citations. Now go tell Nature.
Supplemental data undermine scientific integrity by undermining the peer review process.