Scholarly Publishing: The Elephant (And Other Wildlife) In The Room
Journal-based scholarly communication needs a structural change
Journal-based scholarly communication needs a structural change
Some thoughts on this year’s Open Access Week theme, “community over commercialization.”
Several weeks ago, the Internet Archive lost its appeal of the lawsuit brought by a group of publishers opposed to its controlled digital lending programs. Roger Schonfeld examines what can be learned from this fair use defeat.
Are there ways to use AI in the research workflow to speed up the peer review process — and, while we’re at it, to address some of the other problems around bias and quality?
Antitrust litigation has been filed against six major scholarly publishers. We reached out to the community for their thoughts.
Revisiting Rick Anderson’s 2022 post which asks, are libraries “neutral”? That question is way too simplistic to serve as anything other than a political football.
It is essential to address the hidden costs of retraction and to discuss who needs to bear this cost.
Today we offer a double-post, with a proposal and a response concerning how we frame our efforts toward Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility as a community.
What are the new directions in scholarly publishing? Check out the unique “reverse roundtable” discussions at SSP’s New Directions seminar!
Do publishers really understand what tools researchers are using and how they are using them? Can we do more to create better policies based on real use cases and not hypothetical conjecture about what AI might do in the future?
Even a flawed paper can offer lessons on how (not) to report, and what (not) to claim.
Citing chatbots as information sources offer little in terms of promoting smart use of generative AI and could also be damaging.
If you use a chatbot in writing a text, and are discouraged from listing it as a coauthor, should you attribute the relevant passages to the tool via citation instead? Is it appropriate to cite chatbots as information sources?
Three Oxford administrators want to lower the cost of mandatory open access by shifting the responsibility for enforcement to funding agencies. But that doesn’t lower costs at all; it only shifts them. To truly lower costs, stop trying to make open access mandatory.
How will the American Sunlight Project make it more costly for bad actors to spread disinformation — and what does this mean for scholarly publishing?