On September 20, 2024, MIT Press hosted a workshop, Access to Science & Scholarship: An Evidence Base to Support the Future of Open Research Policy. I interviewed Amy Brand to discuss the goals and outcomes of the workshop.
DORA’s reaction to Clarivate’s decision to no longer fully index eLife (and, therefore, not to give it a Journal Impact Factor) seems inconsistent with both its and eLife’s public positions, and based on the mistaken belief that “disruption” is an absolute good in itself.
In light of recent events, we revisit Karin Wulf’s 2022 post which declared that universities need democracy, and vice versa, and discussed an important book which shows the 20th century history of that relationship in the United States, and offers a prescription for what we do as both are imperiled.
Journal-based scholarly communication needs a structural change
Some thoughts on this year’s Open Access Week theme, “community over commercialization.”
Several weeks ago, the Internet Archive lost its appeal of the lawsuit brought by a group of publishers opposed to its controlled digital lending programs. Roger Schonfeld examines what can be learned from this fair use defeat.
Are there ways to use AI in the research workflow to speed up the peer review process — and, while we’re at it, to address some of the other problems around bias and quality?
Antitrust litigation has been filed against six major scholarly publishers. We reached out to the community for their thoughts.
Revisiting Rick Anderson’s 2022 post which asks, are libraries “neutral”? That question is way too simplistic to serve as anything other than a political football.
It is essential to address the hidden costs of retraction and to discuss who needs to bear this cost.
Today we offer a double-post, with a proposal and a response concerning how we frame our efforts toward Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility as a community.
What are the new directions in scholarly publishing? Check out the unique “reverse roundtable” discussions at SSP’s New Directions seminar!
Do publishers really understand what tools researchers are using and how they are using them? Can we do more to create better policies based on real use cases and not hypothetical conjecture about what AI might do in the future?
Even a flawed paper can offer lessons on how (not) to report, and what (not) to claim.
Citing chatbots as information sources offer little in terms of promoting smart use of generative AI and could also be damaging.