Who has the most power to take choice away from authors?
The executive director of OhioLINK shares that consortium’s experience instituting a statewide “inclusive access” textbook program–and with the criticism that has come their way as a result. (Part 2 of 2.)
The executive director of OhioLINK shares that consortium’s experience instituting a statewide “inclusive access” textbook program–and with the criticism that has come their way as a result. (Part 1 of 2.)
As we think about open research and equity, we introduce a new type of post: “Ask the Community”, where we invite others to answer the same question put to the Chefs, with a deliberate focus on some of the people or regions of the world that often are disadvantaged in the global research landscape.
A look back at ten years of open access posts and ten years of progress on The Scholarly Kitchen.
The suppression of three economic history journals reveals more about Clarivate’s methods than citation manipulation.
Robert Harington argues that academic societies need to balance mission and business more effectively. There is nothing wrong with developing a mixed publishing economy that best suits a range of communities and types of business.
Emma Wilson from the Royal Society of Chemistry discusses their Read and Publish strategies for a transition to open access.
Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. The focus is currently on APCs, but submission fees are overall cheaper for authors, particularly at highly selective journals, and thus warrant serious consideration.
They’re phishing, hacking, and password-cracking to steal personal and research data from the world’s academic institutions. Andrew Pitts takes a hard look at Sci-Hub as, “Corrupt cybercriminals, not Robin Hood.”
A collection of Scholarly Kitchen posts about Predatory Publishing.
Thanks to a major new international research study, it’s no longer possible to pretend that predatory journals are not a serious problem that needs serious attention. The question is: do we have the will to confront it?
John Oliver takes Facebook to task for their seemingly insincere apology advertisements.
Funders are increasingly demanding measurements of “real world” impact from researchers. Does this steer us toward the same traps we’re already in from the ways we already do research assessment?
Recent coordinated investigatory journalism articles, along with separate regulatory actions, are squeezing predatory publishers. But are the root causes being addressed?