Can you prioritize privacy in user research? Simply put – yes.
The apparently different approaches Kopernio, Unpaywall, and Anywhere Access are taking might have a common assumption at their hearts — the status quo.
A collection of Scholarly Kitchen posts about Predatory Publishing.
Thanks to a major new international research study, it’s no longer possible to pretend that predatory journals are not a serious problem that needs serious attention. The question is: do we have the will to confront it?
John Oliver takes Facebook to task for their seemingly insincere apology advertisements.
This Guest Post from Phaedra Cress explores the increased acceptance of unethical behavior in scholarly publishing.
Recent coordinated investigatory journalism articles, along with separate regulatory actions, are squeezing predatory publishers. But are the root causes being addressed?
Jocelyn Dawson and Rebecca McLeod interview Safiya Noble, author of “Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism”.
Calling something a “monopoly” has been misleading in many cases, but the new economy may require a complete rethinking of the anti-competitiveness created by intermediaries at scale.
A history of the rise of coercive media suggests that raising barriers to entry may be a remedy. Could a business model shift do most of the work for us?
Editors are in a position of power to coerce authors to cite their journal and personal papers. Can algorithms help detect misconduct when authors and journal staff are unwilling to speak out?
Kent Anderson looks at an innovative approach to peer review that has expanded, changed review approaches, and impressed authors.
Google’s journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
You can still be manipulated, even when you know you’re being manipulated.
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.