The term “diversity” can be thrown around like we know what it means, but it is highly contextual, not always visual, and tricky to implement meaningfully.
Knowledge Unlatched has announced its “transformation into a central open access platform.” What does that mean, exactly? An interview with Managing Director Sven Fund.
Robert Harington interviews James Milne, Chair of the newly formed Coalition for Responsible Sharing, on action being taken against ResearchGate.
Though flawed, a recent study presents several surprising data points about the voluntary efforts publishers are making to broaden access, and the value of Gold OA in driving citations.
A possible consequence of moves to more tightly regulate social media companies may be they start looking for new investments. And they already have some in scholarly publishing.
An interview with MDPI’s CEO, Dr. Franck Vazquez, sheds light on the challenges and innovations during the last 20 years of open-access publishing.
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.
23andMe presents an interesting model for STM publishers on how to enter a new and lucrative market for data publishing.
After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review.
The genetics testing copany 23andme presents an interesting example of a new kind of data publishing.
As Sci-Hub has grown, it has come to play a larger and larger role in scholarly communications overall. At this time its presence can be felt in the background of every major strategic situation publishers face.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2016 post on the ever-increasing costs of digital publishing.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2014 piece on the competition among journal publishers to acquire the rights to professional society publications. As the marketplace continues to consolidate, these pressures have only increased.
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.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?