Lisa Hinchliffe asks, if the true value is of a subscription is being obscured by over-utilization, should libraries seek to dampen such excess in order to have more appropriate measures of the real value of a subscription?
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
Robert Harington suggests that publishers need to do more for researchers to help authors, and to help reviewers understand their role as a reviewer and be recognized for their work. We need to tackle implicit bias in peer review. We need to focus on our “North Star”
Sven Fund from Knowledge Unlatched talks about new approaches needed to drive open access progress.
This follow-up post of anonymized testimonies by people of color about their experiences of racism in scholarly publishing once again make for powerful reading, and show how much work we still have to do to create an inclusive, anti-racist culture in our industry.
Publishers have shown themselves to be resourceful, navigating troubled waters to growth and profitability.
Even Silicon Valley is finding that recurring revenues (aka, subscriptions) lead to more valuable businesses, while helping smaller companies thrive.
The recently announced agreement between ResearchGate and Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press, and Thieme demonstrates that there is not a uniformity of perspective in the publishing community about article sharing on ResearchGate, or presumably on the many other scholarly collaboration networks that exist. It also signals that ResearchGate, a decade-old start-up disruptor with with venture capital investment and a rapidly grown user base, has taken its place at the negotiating table and found not just enemies but allies.
Sneha Kulkarni from Editage takes a look at the ever-increasing global scientific output, and asks questions about quantity versus quality.
Is copyright infringement malum prohibitum (wrong only because it’s prohibited) or malum in se (morally wrong in and of itself)? Interestingly, scholcomm commentators and legal reference materials often characterize it as the former–while both statute and case law treat it like the latter, classifying it as “property theft” and regularly awarding its victims both statutory and punitive damages.
In this guest post about a largely overlooked aspect of diversity and inclusion,Tasha Mellins-Cohen, Director of Publishing at the Microbiology Society, looks at the biases in the workplace faced by women around maternity — even if they can’t — or choose not to — have children.
It’s a well-known secret that women are paid less than men — in scholarly publishing as in other sectors — but the UK government’s recent legislation requiring organizations with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay gap provides valuable data on just how much of a gap there is…
John Linton offers his thoughts on diversity, perspective, and the need for empathy.
How can secrecy and openness most productively coexist when it comes to the intellectual property of universities and their research faculty? Some thoughts from the new vice president for technology and venture commercialization at a Tier 1 research university.
The buzz around blockchain is mounting. But does it fit with scholarly publishing’s incentives and practices?