Even with the protections of traditional copyright, an author may lose control of his original work and see it misappropriated and used for hateful ends. So is it any wonder that many authors have concerns about being required to publish under CC-BY?
As university presses become more involved with D2C marketing, they are going to confront the need for clearly articulated privacy policies. The time to put those policies in place is now.
Data sharing and publication is a topic we need to consider carefully, and weigh the risks, costs, and benefits, as well as the complexities.
Editors keep allowing nonsense and gibberish to be published in their journals and conference proceedings. How many exposés and sting operations will it take before scholarly publishing begins effectively to police itself?
A particularly pervasive type of error in the ROARMAP registry seems designed to give the impression that many institutional OA policies are more mandatory than they really are. What purpose does this serve?
With the ease of posting and searching online for final published PDFs of journal articles and ebooks, publishers have turned to digital solutions for finding unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Recently, some authors have taken exception to these policies leaving publishers to defend these practices and explain author rights when it comes to sharing accepted manuscripts.
Legal issues are an inevitable part of publishing cutting-edge information in a world as political as academic research. However, the role of publishers in these matters, and their important contributions, are often concealed within necessary discretion.
The Journal of Cultural Anthropology is now becoming open access. This points to one path a professional society can follow if it cannot derive significant income from library sales or if its membership is more interested in wider dissemination of material than the uses income from journals can be put to.
The “publish or perish” culture has created a major mega-journal. But are its boundaries and standards built properly to avoid becoming an enabler of that culture?
The Jack Andraka story develops further. SSP pages on Wikipedia are taken down by a disgruntled commentator. And Andraka’s draft paper gets a preliminary review, and both the reviewers and Andraka admit it’s less game-changing than the media has led us to believe.
The vaccine-autism papers were a hoax. But a lingering controversy around the diagnosis of a celebrity’s child and her insistence on preserving her version of the facts only shows how stubborn misinformation can be.
A strange trip down memory lane, when scientific articles funded by page charges were considered advertisements. Are we entering another era of “articles as advertising,” only this time without any limitations?
The story of a teenage science whiz who used free information sources to create a novel cancer screening test may be full of holes. Whether it is or not, it no longer seems the clear, happy story the media wanted to tell.
A new poll finds that trust in scientists and science journalists is fairly low. But are the two questions separable when it comes to the general public?
As requested, here is a summary of all the things found so far through the FOIA requests regarding PubMed Central — from eLife to BMC to JMLA to conflicts of interest to coverups. It’s quite a fetch.