Ideally, we want science and scholarship to be not only available to the general public, but also comprehensible to them. But the challenges to doing so are real, and may vary both by discipline and by study type.
Elizabeth Gadd takes a look at the contradictions between scholarly culture and copyright culture, and the cognitive dissonance created.
Franklin Foer’s new book is a bracing account of the current information economy, the monopolies and motivations at its heart, and the weakening of democratized knowledge.
Community management has become a key part of social media and online publishing, whether we realize it or not. In this interview, an expert in the fields shares some views of how organizations can benefit from a more singular focus.
Journal editors are more likely to reject papers when they experience trouble recruiting reviewers, reports a new study.
Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In this post, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.
Once again, the term “open” requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
New detailed assessments of journals in the Global South will provide reassurance to authors and readers and guide editors on how to improve their journals.
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? What about patents on publicly funded research? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
The UK Scholarly Communications License repeats many of the stumbles of the original monolithic and mandatory OA policies. We urge its proponents to slow down and learn from them instead.
Cabell’s International has stepped into the gap left by the demise of Beall’s List, providing a new predatory journal blacklist that promises to perform the function of identifying and calling out scam publishers more consistently and transparently. How is it doing so far?
The rise of mobile is cementing business model expectations and driving new monopolies, but the ethics, incentives, and consequences of these models need to be considered.