Luck, Superstitions, and Rationality — Black Cats, Broken Mirrors, Ladders, Salt, and Umbrellas
Common sense of yesteryear is sometimes expressed as “luck.” Would we do better if we made modern common sense “lucky” as well?
eLife Articulates Its Media Policy, and Risks Some of Its Editorial Power
eLife clarifies its media policies, adopting the mask of an enlightened approach that actually makes it harder for everyone to generate much attention.
PubMed Central or OA Central — More Strange Behaviors at PMC and NLM Paint a Portrait of Biases and Poor Process
More information emerges about PubMed Central, its processes, its relationship with eLife, and its role as a technology provider. Overall, it looks like certain OA friends get special treatment, and the processes you think occur are often short-circuited and may not even be tracked.
Reclaiming the Lost Publishing Mojo
Publishers have lost ground in the public debate of the role of publishing in scholarly communications. A new strategy is needed, one that emphasizes preemption, cooptation, and innovation.
Something’s Rotten in Bethesda — The Troubling Tale of PubMed Central, PubMed, and eLife
Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief.
Recuse, Refuse, or Excuse — The Conflicts of Interest at the Heart of Funder-Backed Journals
Funder-sponsored journals raise important conflict of interest questions, and may be fundamentally untenable in an industry that requires independent third-party evaluation of research reports.
Mapping the Flow of Rejected Manuscripts
A study of the flow of manuscript submissions reveals a highly structured and efficient network of scientific journals where peer-review plays a critical role in the improvement and slotting of papers.
Acquiring a New Style of Argument — Clay Shirky on Github
Can the Internet create a new and more cooperative way of arguing?
Jury Duty — Putting Peer-Review Into a Tougher Context
When the stakes are scholarly, peer-review works well. What about when the stakes are life-altering?
Retractions Retraction — Did We "Overinterpret" or Did PLoS Editors "Overwrite"?
A flash mob of concern causes PLoS to reconsider a new policy on retractions.
The Internet Association, Jar Jar Binks, Regulatory Capture, and the Drift Toward Self-Interest
Trade groups often start with their audience in mind, but over time devolve into self-centered agendas. Will the new Internet Association fall into this time-tested trap?
Are Scientists Themselves to Blame for Exaggerated Claims in Science Journalism?
A new study ties problems in abstracts to subsequent exaggerations in the media — but it’s not the big journals that are the major sources.
Monkey Business — Equal Work Demands Equal Pay
When someone is treated unfairly — through pay discrimination — it’s so obvious, even a primate knows it.
(Re)Defining the Library, Part 1: Why?
With changes in the scholarly communications world, many old questions for the library are unsettled once again, and many news ones arise. In this first part of a two-part post, we’ll ask the questions.
Udacity Redux: And Then There Was Credit
Udacity students can now transfer credits to Colorado State. Is this the start of something big?