OA mandates like the RCUK mandate seem to have aspects that actually put the burdens of OA on the academics, universities, taxpayers, and scientists they were meant to help.
Google Glass has the potential to transform personal, social, and political relationships dramatically. Is this increased surveillance in the hands of Google an improvement? Or is it just another sign of problems ahead?
A new infographic presentation shows just how effectively a story can be told around data. It also reveals how divergent perceptions, ideals, and reality can be.
Do higher impact journals do a better job with their statistics? A study with a sexy title proves to be poorly designed and poorly reported.
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach.
When your blog lets you know it’s impressed with your production level, you know you’ve done something that’s both impressive and regrettable.
A new financial analysis of open access and two major publishers suggests that many of the trends we’re seeing aren’t about adversarial ideas and win:lose propositions, but about relatively small market adjustments and incremental changes.
What an idea! Information consoles in the home of the future. They only missed the existence of wi-fi and cellular, and how those made everything portable.
Rediscovering the master of suspense and a superb writer again brings immersive joy to this reader.
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.
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design.
An electric car’s data versus a journalist’s experiences — and neither proves sufficient for the task of telling us exactly what happened.
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.