Darnton, Coppola, and the Impossibility of Free Information
“Free” is an illusion and an insult. All information we want costs money, and we as creators want it to cost money.
“Free” is an illusion and an insult. All information we want costs money, and we as creators want it to cost money.
What do you do? (a poll)
The CHE features some of the parody videos about academic life, including this one about academic librarians.
Now that the vaccine-autism link has been shown to be based on a fraud, will ego continue to trump humility in the face of evidence?
As new business models emerge and funding sources change, can professional societies and not-for-profits respond? Or will they keep their heads buried in the sand?
An interesting and entertaining debunking of some obvious fluffs in medical science, with a chilling reminder of how libel laws in some countries can kill scientific discourse.
When Nature goes head-to-head with PLoS, will non-profit society publishers take the hit?
With the economic benefits of open access open to reinterpretation, will the moral benefits prove sufficient to withstand the coming scrutiny? And will it all begin a race to the bottom?
It’s time to abandon the library-as-victim narrative and write a new story.
An essay in the New York Review of Books about the Google Books Settlement is based on flawed reasoning. Here’s why.
The truth isn’t disintegrating, but perhaps weaker or ad hoc theoretical frameworks are dissolving more quickly these days.
Why hasn’t scientific publishing been disrupted? The question created one of the year’s most-read posts.
Should institutional open access repositories be run like journals?
Image via Wikipedia Rather than choosing a “best” of my own posts, I’ve taken a step back to examine what I’ve written this year, in search of an article or theme upon which to expand. Surveying my 2010 contributions, main […]
A problem in recruiting competent peer-reviewers may be the fault of email spam blockers, not the unwillingness of academics to review.