Journal suppression is an effective tool for reducing high rates of self-citation, even years after a title is reintroduced.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2012 interview with the author of “How Economics Shape Science”.
Revisiting our review of Paula Stephan’s book after her keynote talk at the SSP Annual Meeting.
There is little doubt that piracy of subscription or member-only access content is damaging to publishers and societies. Does the same hold true for open access journals? Angela Cochran explores some of the dangers piracy poses to open access content.
Open access (OA) publishing seeks to eliminate paywalls for users. It has largely succeeded, but new diversions and distractions built into the commercial Internet may create new barriers that will be harder to deal with.
In recent years, observers have noticed that articles for which an APC has been paid are not always made freely available. How pervasive is this problem? A Scholarly Kitchen reader investigates.
Algorithms behave in ways even their creators can’t understand, yet they dominate how we share and see information. Do we need a “Three Laws for Algorithms”?
Science’s historical progress can’t be assumed. It has to be reclaimed, re-established. That’s more difficult in a fragmented information space geared for extremism.
It may seem as if it would be difficult to defend or justify a blatant piracy operation like Sci-Hub. But it can be done, if you’re willing to overlook certain facts and advance certain tenuous moral arguments.
Most journals have adopted rapid publication processes, but with the rise of preprint servers and new trends among readers, maybe they can return to a slower, more considered pace.
Funders have shifted their focus, and are funding, investing in, or launching initiatives that compete with publishers and constrain researchers. What changed?
Do scholarly and scientific publishers risk more than they realize when they embrace modern media spectacle and seek to marginalize the PDF?
The new book by Tom Nichols, “The Death of Expertise,” is not perfect, but it is an important exploration of existential threats to science, education, and representative democracy.
Are we thinking about predatory publishing the wrong way? Are researchers deliberately choosing these journals, and if so, what are the incentives driving this decision?
With scholarship under threat on both sides of the Atlantic, here are some practical tools all of us can use as we stand up for science and build trust in scholarly communications through improving transparency, rigor and peer review.