Open Access: No Benefit for Poor Scientists
Authors in developing countries are no more likely to write papers for Open Access journals and are no more likely to cite Open Access articles a new study suggests.
Authors in developing countries are no more likely to write papers for Open Access journals and are no more likely to cite Open Access articles a new study suggests.
The Research Assessment Exercise is slow and expensive. Abandoning peer-review for quantitative assessment may lead to excessive gaming and corrupt the indicators of quality.
The abuse of editorial power and favoritism leads to a national scandal in France.
Scholarly publishers risk following the newspaper industry if they don’t value peer-review.
Improving transparency and accountability in biomedical publishing has turned authorship into a legal system.
Professionalism of science has given face to invisible technicians and collaborators and can partly explain the growth in authorship.
Can nearly 3,000 individuals really be authors on a single paper?
What can be learned about science and publishing from the El Naschie controversy?
Controversial self-publishing editor, El Naschie, to step down in 2009. Professional affiliations cast in doubt.
An editor who publishes five of his own articles is the center of a controversy in math publishing.
Scientists appear to be reading more AND citing less. Are these two findings compatible?
Two Swiss economists claim that the supposed Open Access citation advantage can be explained by self-selection and recommend authors save their research dollars.
Circular reasoning and tradition cloud an otherwise significant report on what constitutes scholarship today.
Why the market for scholarly articles looks a lot like the market for used cars.
Image via Wikipedia Our Scholarly Chicken has recovered from his last gastronomic episode, and now that the weather has turned fowl, he has been feeling rather peckish. As Thanksgiving approaches, consider sending this recipe to those who see little value […]