Proposing a model for thinking about the interactions of rigor, cogency, accessibility, significance, openness, and impact in scholarly quality.
So does Sci-Hub lead libraries to cancel journals, or doesn’t it? Maybe the answer isn’t a simple yes or no.
Shaun Khoo questions whether authors will exercise their market power to put downward pressure on article processing charges.
Roy Kaufman of Copyright Clearance Center lays out an argument for a more robust and expansive use of licenses by rightsholders, especially in light of recent developments in the EU.
Consolidation and concentration are inherent properties of media in a networked environment.
What is the future of AI in scholarly communications? How can applications of AI in scholarly communications effectively leverage research artifacts?
Read-and-publish? Publish-and-read? A primer on transformative agreements by @lisalibrarian.
Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution “Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.”
Guest author Rob Schlesinger encourages a rethink of the common requirement that graduate students publish their dissertations.
If you’re a scholarly and scientific author and you think the open access movement is irrelevant to your interests, think again.
The editorial board for the Journal of Informetrics declared checkmate when they resigned over Elsevier’s open access and open citations policies. Raising both practical and moral questions of journal ownership, the editors of Learning Publishing ask: What can this power move tell us about editorial ownership in the age of open science?
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.