Margaret Ann Armour at SSP 2016, Crossing Boundaries: Encouraging Diversity
Dr. Margaret Ann Armour’s keynote on diversity in academia and publishing, from the SSP’s 2016 Annual Meeting.
Dr. Margaret Ann Armour’s keynote on diversity in academia and publishing, from the SSP’s 2016 Annual Meeting.
Expectations of free content are entrenched, but artists, authors, and publishers are all hurting because of it. The basic problem? It’s leading to a lack of trust in the future.
A breakdown of the mechanics of the TED Talk.
Many of the popular tools that we use everyday require two-step authentication. It seems odd that universities, who store data much more valuable than cat videos, recipes, and selfies, are slow to require it. That may change shortly.
What does it mean for libraries to be competitive and “entrepreneurial”? And is the very concept a Trojan horse for neoliberalism? Does it matter?
The general fragmentation of media and society has profound implications, and may explain to some extent the fragmentation being seen in higher education and scholarly publishing.
The technology developed to create a crypto-currency may be used to solve two intractable problems in scholarly publishing: authenticating users and counting usage.
When entities like Sci-Hub invite you to share your network credentials in order to help create free access to licensed scholarly publications, they’re asking for more than access to research. What they’re asking for may also give them access to your email account, your course management program, your tax documents, and more. Here are some things to think about before you decide to share that network user ID and password.
Why is it so frustrating and difficult to talk about scholarly-communication reform, and why do those conversations seem to involve virtually all members of the scholcomm ecosystem except for authors?
John Oliver offers a scathing look at the poor practices of media in scientific reporting.
After hundreds of manipulated images were detected across 40 scientific journals, the real work will be to correct the scientific record.
We’re in a thicket of stories proclaiming “science is broken” and that stealing articles isn’t stealing because, publishers. This cottage industry of journal bashing and science trashing has reached a crescendo. What drives it? And what more important stories are being missed in the maelstrom?
Citation networks can provide much more than journal metrics and rankings. Publishers should look to them for competitive intelligence.
If Thomson Reuters can calculate Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, why can’t they deliver a simple median score?
After a few weeks of blistering comment sections on Scholarly Kitchen posts, it’s probably time to review the most common logical fallacies employed in arguing on the internet.