Those who argue that “predatory” behavior is not only a problem among author-pays OA publishers have a good point. But this raises another question: is the term “predatory” itself really useful in the context of scholarly communication?
Nature conducts an experiment in paid fast track peer review, and the research community responds with concerns over creating an unfair tiered system for publication.
Popular discussion of the enduring popularity of print often obfuscate the business issues of managing a company that is transitioning from print to digital.
On the surface editorial independence seems so straight-forward. However, it is filled with nuance. If publishing and editorial expectations are not clearly set, misunderstandings can cause angst, poor working relationships, and even legal action.
Each sector of the information community is aware of the likelihood that their role in the scholarly ecosystem will change over the next three to five years. Each sector’s perspective is just a bit different. Content providers in the STM world see the future unfolding this way.
After conducting further research, a January 2015 Scholarly Kitchen post is versioned.
The Oxford English Dictionary’s overarching definition of the transitive verb “publish” is “to make public.” An early use, dating to 1382 is “to prepare and issue copies of (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.).” This is probably how most […]
ROARMAP, a deeply flawed and often misleading international registry of open access “mandates,” has now been completely revamped–and the result is a much more informative and reliable resource.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s post based on his FOIA request documents show that PubMed Central spends most of its money tagging author manuscripts, and that its stricter rules for NIH authors may double its costs.
John Oliver offers an important public service message about the horror that is April Fools’ Day.
There is much discussion now about creating new online bookstores, especially for academic publishers. Some of these discussions, however, are not aligned with overarching trends on the Internet and risk creating something that appears to be out of date the moment it is launched.
What’s wrong with peer review and article submission processes? What can publishers, authors, and reviewers do to improve the status quo?
As we consider the future of scholarly publishing generally and of open access in particular, we need to keep in mind the deep differences between the humanities and the applied sciences when it comes to both the production and the consumption of scholarship–and the implications of those differences for new dissemination models.
SXSW Interactive 2015. It may be over but its impact is not. Highlights from SX and reasons why Interactive is beneficial to everyone in publishing and communication.
Even open access advocates should support the commercialization of materials that are OA, as such commercialization can lead to enhanced discovery of scientific materials.