We continue to battle the tidal wave of data with a bucket brigade of individual privacy settings. Maybe it’s time to pause and consider a state-level solution, ala Estonia.
We have all been shocked and disgusted by painful stories of harassment over recent months, so why have we heard nothing from our own industry? As many can attest, sexual harassment is just as real and pervasive in scholarly communication as elsewhere. It’s time for us to own this and to begin working together to eradicate this behavior for the next generation of women.
Business models that exploit vulnerabilities are unfair. Can a model that aligns producer and consumers help fix the Internet?
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?
Accessible publishing is better for publishers, better for the bottom line, better for readers of all stripes. If we agree that egalitarian dissemination of academic content is the thing to do, including those with physical, learning, or cognitive challenges, then why does end-to-end accessible publishing continue to elude us?
There are various ways that customers get locked in to services in scholarly communications. These methods are longed for by publishers and disliked by customers, but they naturally emerge as a part of the economy.
A new book explores how biases and broken systems get built into technology products and platforms.
The challenges posed to record labels by Napster in the late 1990s and early 2000s resemble those posed by Sci-Hub to scholarly publishers today. But which of those resemblances are real, and which are misleading?
The challenges posed to record labels by Napster in the late 1990s and early 2000s resemble those posed by Sci-Hub to scholarly publishers today. But which of those resemblances are real, and which are misleading?
2017 may have been a watershed year for the Internet and its future. What did we learn? And what factors may shape 2018?
The Altmetric “flower” is an icon, and the annual Top 100 list a much-anticipated event. But is the flower really a stalk?
Are we losing good articles to predatory journals, with little recourse for unsuspecting authors? Or are authors becoming increasingly complicit and symbiotic in their relationships with illegitimate publishing entities with disregard for the greater good? Maybe it’s both. Today’s guest post explores what can happen when an author accidentally falls into the predatory journal rabbit hole.
Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
The NIH is warning its funded authors against publishing in predatory journals, and the FTC has secured a preliminary injunction against OMICS for alleged predatory publishing practices. Will this mark a turning point in the fight against fraudulent scholarly publishing?
A look at inequality in research and knowledge systems, and in particular, how gender issues in higher education are exacerbated in the Global South.