A major economics association establishes conflict of interest and disclosure rules for its publications, expecting others to follow. But is the lateness of these rules reassuring, or maddening?
As the deadline for responses to the OSTP RFI approaches, perhaps we should reflect on how the government can make its own research reports available in a more complete, direct, and affordable manner.
Can tweets predict future citations? A study of article tweets raises validity and ethical concerns.
A dialogue on patron-driven acquisitions by a librarian (Rick Anderson) and a publishing consultant (Joe Esposito). Patron-driven acquisitons may evolve into patron-driven access. But publishers ultimately will have to bless the plans.
Amazon’s retail juggernaut has many people upset, but perhaps we should all reflect on the fact that a company devoted to customer service, thin margins, and a long-term disciplined strategy can thrive.
UNESCO, along with the U.S. State Department and others, launch a portal that has plenty of information, lower than usual amounts of rhetoric, but remains controversial because of how it’s positioned.
The misplaced anxiety and consternation publishers and authors showed in the face of Amazon’s Price Check app revealed an industry and culture rooted in the past. And that’s not where the readers of the future are coming from.
eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
More tired OA rhetoric, this time wielding an argument that copyright approaches of some OA publishers aren’t pure enough to qualify as “real” open access. Get ready to feel the burn.
The question of when print will end is often framed as if it is a natural occurrence, an evolutionary question, or the likely outcome of a sporting event, rather than a business decision that publishers may revisit on a regular basis.
Publishers’ practice of clinging to DRM may be strengthening Amazon’s already overwhelming market position. Publishers should consider dropping DRM and even assisting in the creation of new digital venues.
Can a new open access journal that relies on working scientists to oversee its review process compete with other top-tier journals that employ professional editors?
The collapse of Borders should be a wake-up call to publishers that assume that the core infrastructure of their legacy businesses will always be there to provide essential services.
Two great examples of books that contain more error than fact raise some important questions of what belongs in a library, and the purpose of acquisitions practices.
The rhetoric of “open” seeks to rally science to some higher state, but it’s not clear what “open science” means, why it’s any better, and what the risks of its adoption might be.