Despite the fact that the Google Books settlement was not approved, Google’s mass digitization has forever transformed the landscape of publishing, libraries, and the way we think about information.
Major social media plays in science hit the rocks, as hype hits reality and the culture of science.
Digital media makes it possible to work in new formats. The medium-length work, between a book and an article, promises to open up a new variety of scholarly communications.
Does an increase in article retractions signal a corrupt publishing system or just better policing?
The American Chemical Society certifies programs, which must subscribe to some of its products to qualify. How can this conflict of interest be
Education reform requires educators acting as media players and change agents. Can it happen?
An entire issue of a society’s newsmagazine is taken down, and an editor resigns, after a slightly uncomfortable attempt at humor. We’re talkin’ ’bout overreaction.
In many Chinese universities, authors are paid to publish. And the more prestigious the journal, the higher the reward.
Promises of more citations if authors pay are problematic in more ways than one.
As we continue to see highly concentrated wealth, corrupt political systems, and a citizenry without civic recourse here in America, the deleterious effects on scholarship, research, and education are mounting.
Scandal sends shockwaves through library community. Publishers, meanwhile, see business in counter-culture books aimed at naughty librarians.
The Google Books Settlement actually hit its second roadblock this week. Here’s why, and where matter might go from here.
The Google Books Settlement hits a barrier. The implications of this will need to be sorted out over the coming days and weeks.
After years of debate, ACRL will finally “walk the talk.” But without a business model, they could get tripped up.
The HarperCollins e-book lending limitations provide lessons in how both sides typically deal with change.