Attacks — both overt and covert — from OA advocates and NIH/NLM phantoms come in the wake of the posts revealing how eLife and PubMed Central coordinated activities and kept secrets.
A librarian writes a blog post critical of a publisher. Publisher sues librarian and his current institution. It’s a case that bears watching in this age of heightened communication combined with academic freedom.
Conflicts of interest at PubMed Central have been mismanaged, and seem to have led to loading the National Advisory Committee with Wellcome representatives, among other things.
When PubMed Central expedited eLife, PeerJ wondered why. Emails within PMC suggest they were tempted to help PeerJ in the same way. They even talked with eLife about how to handle things.
Circumstantial evidence has become direct evidence — that eLife requested publication in PMC; that PMC collaborated with eLife; that PMC sought to conceal its preferential treatment; and that systems and processes at the NLM regarding PMC inclusion are unclear and open to abuse and misuse.
A blog post based on a talk purports to convince us that OA is good for not-for-profit societies. However, it accomplishes just the opposite once you get past the misinformation and misinterpretations.
Editors have learned how to exploit a simple loophole in the calculation of the Impact Factor. Is it time to close that loophole?
Will massive open online courses (MOOCs) disrupt higher education? With recent announcements, the potential seems to be growing.
A great analysis of why it was technologically impossible to fake the 1969 moon landing.
Free services and open access are distorting the publishing world. Will the big only get bigger?
A new way to view journal content in PubMed Central casts journal branding aside for a uniform PMC approach.
Dame Janet Finch admits OA will cause problems for learned societies. What does that portend, especially when viewed alongside more backlash?
In the follow-up to “What Are STM Publishers Doing Wrong?” we explore what STM publishers are doing right. It’s an impressive list.
The first of a two-part series, today we review a long and complicated list of things STM publishers are doing wrong. Tomorrow, we’ll explore the opposite question — what are STM publishers doing right?
When trusting the wisdom of the crowds, it’s important to understand what is meant by “crowd.”