(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.
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.
Amazon’s new X-ray technology creates books that are automatically annotated. In doing this, the machine is beginning to preempt some aspects of the act of reading.
The publication of short works opens up new opportunities for academic publishers that heretofore have had to choose between the forms of the article on one hand and the full-length book on the other.
After a summer full of interesting posts and time to think, a bit of reflection seems in order as we head into Fall.
Books and book chapters have a competitive disadvantage in citations, but it’s not accessibility that makes the difference — there are more reasons, and more changes needed.
A review of William Dean Howells’ 1890 novel, “A Hazard of New Fortunes,” which is about finding new business models for media businesses. The book describes an economic landscape that is eerily similar to our own.
eLife is beginning to accept papers, but is it proper for them to promote papers they’ve accepted without having published the final versions? What will their approach be to media embargoes?
Moving from the West Coast to the East prompts some thoughts on personal libraries and e-books, as it no longer makes economic sense to carry a lifetime of books around with us. But maybe economic sense isn’t the only sense bibliophiles possess . . .
Publishers provide editors who do much more than proofread or copyedit. They provide editors who support authors and editors — and readers. Here’s an interview that sheds some important light.
What once appeared to be a lopsided ruling has, in its final form, turned into something much more definitive.
An interview with Ivan Oransky — physician, journalist, and co-founder of “Retraction Watch.”
Representing data graphically is always tricky. It doesn’t help when a journalist misses many opportunities to verify the data, provide context, and ask some probing questions.
When there’s a lot at stake, peer review still helps to separate the best information from the rest.
The power and identity of Reviewer 3 springs from the shadows to ensnare the unwanted paper. But is it really a powerful spirit? Or just Dad in a mask?
An interview with Fred Dylla of the American Institute of Physics, and why funding is at the heart of many issues we currently face.