Post-Publication Peer-Review Already Exists, Already Has Incentives, and Is Already Robust
A recent exhortation to support post-publication peer-review with awards shines a light on the holes in both ideas.
A recent exhortation to support post-publication peer-review with awards shines a light on the holes in both ideas.
A new proposal regarding federally funded data is leaked. What might a broad policy for public access mean?
The first of a two-part series, today we review a long and complicated list of things STM publishers are doing wrong. Tomorrow, we’ll explore the opposite question — what are STM publishers doing right?
When trusting the wisdom of the crowds, it’s important to understand what is meant by “crowd.”
I forget exactly when I first came across the idea that environmental lead, leftover from decades of leaded gasoline, was a factor in mental acuity, violent tendencies, and potentially crime. It must have been at least 20-25 years ago. Since […]
In a follow-up to the six mistakes sales reps make, here’s a list of six mistakes library staff can make. It’s a sobering comparison.
A group of history editors in the UK publish an open letter stating they will not comply with aspects of the RCUK mandates for OA. What can we learn from this?
A new report on institutional information expenditures raises the real possibility that instead of their being a pricing problem, there’s a quantity problem driving expenditures.
Universities should seek to retain control of their copyrights and develop mechanisms to monetize them to ensure the financial health of the institutions. This is a proposal that sides neither with open access advocates nor with the interests of commercial organizations.
Is print dead, or just demoted? This video shows that it, and its advocates, won’t go down without a fight.
A low-priced tablet computer from India might have the potential to change the game for many. Are we ready for a potential rapid and system-wide disruption?
The US government views data policy as an emerging area. A new National Academies report reveals the potential and the barriers, many of which are financial.
More value can be delivered online, and members seem to be seeking it. Is it time to move to an online-only benefits model for societies?
Funders and governments are exerting their influence in scientific publishing through monetary and financial threats, and are willing to slow science in order to accomplish OA goals.
Funders — corporate, governmental, and philanthropic — have different priorities, yet they are now reaching into scientific publishing, wearing OA as a glove that fits. This post explores the problems this is creating and might create if allowed to perpetuate.