We continue to battle the tidal wave of data with a bucket brigade of individual privacy settings. Maybe it’s time to pause and consider a state-level solution, ala Estonia.
A conference at the British Library provides ample evidence of the breadth of the university press sector and the absolute necessity of a clear institutional mission.
It often seems that it is taken for granted that open access will accelerate scientific discovery, but how would we evaluate this? Do we even know that it is true?
In this update, the focus shifts to the value journal publishers offer, and who benefits.
Popular opinion to the contrary, scholarly publishing has not been disrupted. But only superior management can navigate the many challenges ahead.
Business models that exploit vulnerabilities are unfair. Can a model that aligns producer and consumers help fix the Internet?
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?
Solving the transfer problem has created a widespread perception that rejecting a manuscript–especially after considerable time and resources have been devoted to its review–is downright wasteful. If it’s publishable, why not publish it?
There are various ways that customers get locked in to services in scholarly communications. These methods are longed for by publishers and disliked by customers, but they naturally emerge as a part of the economy.
Publishers are understandably concerned about piracy, but the STM/NISO initiative RA21 “to align and simplify pathways to subscribed content across participating scientific platforms” has scoped its problem the wrong way. Simply put: It’s not about security. It’s about identity. Every individual should be in control of their own identity. Can RA21 realize its potential to serve the broader interests of scientists and academia, not just the understandable objectives of publishers and vendors?
Many column inches – right here in the Scholarly Kitchen as well as elsewhere – have been expended on the megajournal and its successes and (perhaps more often), failures. But how might megajournals support the very real need for action to improve the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research?
Breaking news today: Digital Science is launching a new citation index that includes a research analytics suite a modern article discovery and access experience. This new product, Dimensions, will offer stiff new competition for Elsevier and Clarivate.
Predicted to radically consolidate STM journals, the OA megajournal has found a successful niche market. The same can be said for MOOCs.
Elsevier is often thought to the be enemy of libraries, but Elsevier’s practices have in fact improved libraries’ situation, including lowering the prices for scientific article.
The challenges posed to record labels by Napster in the late 1990s and early 2000s resemble those posed by Sci-Hub to scholarly publishers today. But which of those resemblances are real, and which are misleading?