Are Publishers Anti-Publishing?
Do publishers really believe in what they do? Or have they essentially thrown in the towel?
Do publishers really believe in what they do? Or have they essentially thrown in the towel?
What can be learned about science and publishing from the El Naschie controversy?
Controversial self-publishing editor, El Naschie, to step down in 2009. Professional affiliations cast in doubt.
An editor who publishes five of his own articles is the center of a controversy in math publishing.
Bragging about downloads is akin to saying your site doesn’t work well. Authors will soon start to notice.
Please join us in welcoming the culinary acumen of Joseph Esposito to the Scholarly Kitchen. Joe is an independent consultant providing strategy assessment and interim management to the information industries. He has served as an executive at Simon & Schuster […]
Obama.com and Military.com settle any differences by focusing on the people.
For a fraction of their revenues, Google creates a win-win.
Mail Goggles suggests something more, but might accidentally stop some happier souls from connecting.
In the information tsunami, some of the best writers are seeking shelter, preferring intimacy and connection to broadcast and reach.
News is breaking. How it’s breaking holds lessons for customer-centric scholarly publishers.
A recent PLoS Medicine article claims that information economics distort science. But maybe it’s an obsession with journals distorting the views of the authors.
Elsevier’s Article 2.0 experiment is a nice idea built on a faulty approach. It may even be cynical.
A new Technorati report on the state of the blogosphere jibes with observations that blogs have become mainstream.
Is peer review in decline? Evidence from the field of economics suggests that top authors are bypassing the journal certification process and distributing their papers on their own. Will other authors follow?