A possible consequence of moves to more tightly regulate social media companies may be they start looking for new investments. And they already have some in scholarly publishing.
Comedian Bill Maher draws a disturbing parallel between social media and cigarettes.
Once again, the term “open” requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
New detailed assessments of journals in the Global South will provide reassurance to authors and readers and guide editors on how to improve their journals.
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
A recent book took aim at accelerating administrative demands and the internalized expectation of measurable productivity that have eroded the quality of academic life and work. Is there a corollary for scholarly publishing?
The superficial distinction between non-profits and for-profits bears scrutiny. What are the true differences? Is either structure innately superior?
Changing the culture is the topic of this year’s FORCE2017 conference in October. It’s typically not a priority, in scholarly communications or in business – but it should be…
Cabell’s International has stepped into the gap left by the demise of Beall’s List, providing a new predatory journal blacklist that promises to perform the function of identifying and calling out scam publishers more consistently and transparently. How is it doing so far?
The rise of mobile is cementing business model expectations and driving new monopolies, but the ethics, incentives, and consequences of these models need to be considered.
Trolls dominate for many reasons — economics, technology, our predilection for sordid entertainment. But they’ve chilled online discourse and damaged civil exchanges, even making some publishers reluctant to take full advantage of the potential of the Internet. Are we ready for v2.0 of commenting?
We once assumed taxpayer-funding meant information availability. The new US government is now actively hiding scientific data, imperiling our understanding of the world.
In a “post-truth” world with declining faith in scientific progress, what is the publisher role in the clear communication and promotion of scholarly research?