There are many reasons to be cheerful in the world of scholarly publishing. Taking a cue from Ian Dury and the Blockheads, and his song, Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 3., this post describes an example of good things afoot in the library community. It is up to you to provide parts 1. and 2.
Three different items recently published discuss the current state of thinking about discovery tools for purposes of research. Which one captures the right mindset? What should content providers be doing to support discovery?
A new book by the creator of xkcd takes crazy questions about science and tackles them with verve, humor, great illustrations, and great examples of how to break down even the strangest problems.
Libraries do not have the luxury (or the mission) of selecting books solely based on their intrinsic quality. In order to do their work, the students and scholars served by the library need access to books that are highly relevant to their interests. How do the variables of quality and relevance interact with each other when it comes to library book purchasing?
Is there hope for scholarly societies? Where once perhaps membership benefits from publications were key, now the emphasis will move to the character of academic life and independence from commercial forces. This post aims to engage the reader in thinking through what it means to be a member of a scholarly society
Hysteria over a supervolcano leads to speculation about the eruptions of misinformation all around us. And, why exactly are we seeing so many recycled news stories in social media these days?
John Oliver hosts a new fake newscast, this time with an unexpected co-anchor.
Long “Instructions to Authors” filled with ancillary policies and undifferentiated requirements don’t help authors, staff, or editors. As the graveyard for unmade decisions, they’ve only gotten longer and more opaque. Maybe it’s time to clean yours up!
An interview with the President of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, on the unintended and potentially damaging consequences of public and open access mandates and embargoes.
FASEB’s Stand Up For Science competition winner brings perspective to the question of why we need to fund basic research.
A recent “Slate” article shows what can go wrong when we talk about “peer review” as if we all share a common definition about an unchanging phenomenon.
Over the past three decades, the research library has been receiving a smaller proportion of the university budget. Does this trend reflect the failure of library administrators and the declining relevance of libraries? Or does it tell the story of self-control and growing efficiency against a backdrop of spiraling higher education costs?
Revisiting a 2012 post to ask, do journal authors really give their articles away for free to publishers?
A short video explaining the costs that go into producing a book, and how little difference there is in those costs between electronic and print books.
What do societies really think about Open Access? A recent survey, though small, provides some initial answers…