Thoughts and Observations on the OSTP Responses to Our Interview Questions
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson reflect on the OSTP’s response to their interview questions, and on some implications of those responses and of the memo itself.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson reflect on the OSTP’s response to their interview questions, and on some implications of those responses and of the memo itself.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson interview Dr. Alondra Nelson, acting director of the White House Office on Science & Technology Policy when the new OSTP memo was published.
A new type of post from us today, offering a smorgasbord of opinions on topics including the ongoing Twitter/Elon Musk saga, just what “equitable access” to the literature means, the ongoing lack of experimental controls in one area of bibliometric analysis, and whether journals are more like a gate or a sewer.
Robert Harington considers whether open and public access models, as they have emerged so far, are delivering us to a more inequitable publishing future as we rush towards openness.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson provide a roundup of responses to the new OSTP public access memo — and a preview of their interview with OSTP leadership.
A look back at a 2015 post about approaches to improve funder policy compliance. Many of the same problems exist now as did then — are the same collaborative solutions likely to happen?
A flip to open access requires a holistic view of a journal’s incoming revenue. Are there important contributions to revenue that disappear with open access, and how can those funds be replaced?
Day 2 of Chef reactions to the OSTP Policy memo. What are your thoughts? Share your views with the Scholarly Kitchen community.
Everyone has an opinion about the OSTP Policy memo! Come over and hear what the Chefs have to say and share your opinions with us. Part 1 of a 2 part post.
Some initial thoughts on the new OSTP memo on public access to results of federally funded research — and questions about its intent and implications.
A recent data falsification scandal in Alzheimer’s research raises new questions about perverse incentives in the culture and practice of science.
CCC’s Roy Kaufman looks at the potential impacts of a new UK proposal allowing for commercial text- and data-mining of copyrighted materials.
Rick Anderson revisits a 2020 post: One way or another, the #scholcomm community is going to choose either a diversity of publishing models or a monoculture, because it can’t have both. How will this choice be made, and by whom?
Revisiting a 2015 post that predicted the dominance of the cascade model of journal portfolio publishing and the increased dominance of the larger existing publishers in an open access market.
When a reputable journal refuses to get involved with a questionable paper, science looks less like a self-correcting enterprise and more like a way to amass media attention.