The eLife Story Continues — Evasions Seem the Best We Can Expect
The continued silence from major funders involved in the eLife-PubMed Central scandal is creating a noise all its own.
Are Scholarly Societies Still Relevant to Young Researchers? Perhaps Surprisingly, Yes They Are
Remaining relevant requires action, and new research suggests it’s not too late for these actions to retain younger members, who remain interested in what professional and learned societies can and do offer.
Taking Issue — A New York Times Editorial Mishandles the OSTP Memorandum
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design.
Confusions in the OSTP OA Policy Memo — Three Monsters and a Gorilla
The OSTP public access memorandum provides flexibility across many US federal agencies. The possible complexities combined with current budget realities mean there is much to tame and little to spend doing it.
Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research: First Impressions on the US Government's Policy
The public access policy for the OSTP is announced, and it is even-handed, realistic, designed for rapid implementation, and a sign that the OA movement has matured into one that can work collaboratively to move forward.
Rewarding Reviewers: Money, Prestige, or Some of Both?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
A Cry from the Ivory Tower — An Attempt to Make the Case Against Patents
Two economists try to argue the case against patents. But their arguments are undercut by trite examples, a poor understanding of how patents look to inventors and investors, and a misreading of the evidence.
Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase
A reprint of an essay from 2008, which attempts to describe the evolution of open access publishing, Written before the astounding success of PLoS ONE, it outlines the link between open access publishing and the still-persistent traditional model.
It's FASTR — Is It Bettr?
Another bill designed to make taxpayer-funded research available raises old questions and familiar divides. Does it have a chance of generating a productive decision?
Privatizing Peer Review — A Short Survey
Initiatives like Rubriq will succeed if they address the real needs of authors, reviewers, and editors. Take the survey and tell us what you think.
What Scholarly Publishers Can Learn from Bookish
Bookish is a new online bookstore and discovery service. It is a joint venture of three publishers and presents a useful model for what scholarly publishers could do in building their own online bookstore.
Licensing Controversy — Balancing Author Rights with Societal Good
The CC-BY license is assumed to be an open access standard, but the situation is complex — for funders, authors, universities, and publishers of all types. Perhaps a less dogmatic approach would serve all parties better.
Pulling the Wool Over Their Eyes — The PubMed National Advisory Committee and Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest at PubMed Central have been mismanaged, and seem to have led to loading the National Advisory Committee with Wellcome representatives, among other things.
Why Were PubMed Central and eLife Discussing PeerJ?
When PubMed Central expedited eLife, PeerJ wondered why. Emails within PMC suggest they were tempted to help PeerJ in the same way. They even talked with eLife about how to handle things.
Something's Rotten in Bethesda, Indeed — How PubMed Central Came to Help Launch and Initially Publish eLife
Circumstantial evidence has become direct evidence — that eLife requested publication in PMC; that PMC collaborated with eLife; that PMC sought to conceal its preferential treatment; and that systems and processes at the NLM regarding PMC inclusion are unclear and open to abuse and misuse.