Though flawed, a recent study presents several surprising data points about the voluntary efforts publishers are making to broaden access, and the value of Gold OA in driving citations.
While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.
Comedian Bill Maher draws a disturbing parallel between social media and cigarettes.
An interview with MDPI’s CEO, Dr. Franck Vazquez, sheds light on the challenges and innovations during the last 20 years of open-access publishing.
Once again, the term “open” requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
23andMe presents an interesting model for STM publishers on how to enter a new and lucrative market for data publishing.
Scholarly publishers are already doing much to make government funded research as free as possible as soon as it is published. Why do we need a law to enact what is already taking shape? Robert Harington suggests it comes down to politics.
The genetics testing copany 23andme presents an interesting example of a new kind of data publishing.
Sara Rouhi from Altmetric reflects on the biases of the “research industrial complex”.
Designed to identify individuals who might be gaming their h-index score, the s-index may do more harm than good.
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
As Sci-Hub has grown, it has come to play a larger and larger role in scholarly communications overall. At this time its presence can be felt in the background of every major strategic situation publishers face.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2014 piece on the competition among journal publishers to acquire the rights to professional society publications. As the marketplace continues to consolidate, these pressures have only increased.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? What about patents on publicly funded research? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.