Famed detective Sherlock Holmes does his best to help his friend Dr. Watson figure out how best to comply with the requirements of Plan S.
January 1, 2019 marked the emergence of new works to the US Public Domain for the first time in 20 years.
As publishers increasingly lose control of the final stage of the publishing process, they are looking elsewhere to extract economic value. They are finding it upstream, in the various linked processes that lead to the (erstwhile) final document.
Over 1,400 researchers signed an open letter expressing concern about Plan S. Then Twitter came for them — and, more particularly, for the woman who organized the letter.
Who has the most power to take choice away from authors?
The HathiTrust Research Center has recently announced a significant expansion of its services. Rick Anderson discusses the changes with Executive Director Mike Furlough and staff.
They’re phishing, hacking, and password-cracking to steal personal and research data from the world’s academic institutions. Andrew Pitts takes a hard look at Sci-Hub as, “Corrupt cybercriminals, not Robin Hood.”
Clown faces painted onto eggs as a method for registering copyright. Shudder.
The apparently different approaches Kopernio, Unpaywall, and Anywhere Access are taking might have a common assumption at their hearts — the status quo.
An author found that the relevant journals were unwilling to publish an article of historical research that found evidence for a surprising and somewhat controversial proposition about the founding of the University of Utah. So what did she decide to do with her article? Something rather unusual, it turns out.
Libraries and legacy publishers are in an unholy embrace. They need not love each other to feel they should stick together.
Sven Fund from Knowledge Unlatched talks about new approaches needed to drive open access progress.
The recently announced agreement between ResearchGate and Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press, and Thieme demonstrates that there is not a uniformity of perspective in the publishing community about article sharing on ResearchGate, or presumably on the many other scholarly collaboration networks that exist. It also signals that ResearchGate, a decade-old start-up disruptor with with venture capital investment and a rapidly grown user base, has taken its place at the negotiating table and found not just enemies but allies.
Is copyright infringement malum prohibitum (wrong only because it’s prohibited) or malum in se (morally wrong in and of itself)? Interestingly, scholcomm commentators and legal reference materials often characterize it as the former–while both statute and case law treat it like the latter, classifying it as “property theft” and regularly awarding its victims both statutory and punitive damages.
A website that provided fonts based on the handwriting of famous songwriters has been shut down. But is there actually a legal case to answer?