(Re)Defining the Library, Part 1: Why?
With changes in the scholarly communications world, many old questions for the library are unsettled once again, and many news ones arise. In this first part of a two-part post, we’ll ask the questions.
With changes in the scholarly communications world, many old questions for the library are unsettled once again, and many news ones arise. In this first part of a two-part post, we’ll ask the questions.
In addition to what publishers do directly for authors and readers, they foster many collaborative and philanthropic efforts around the world.
“Waste” is hard to define, and therefore hard to eliminate. And it’s not just a print phenomenon. Perhaps we need more than the minimum because the world is unpredictable, our abilities are finite and fleeting, and intellectual work is fairly extravagant.
Good advice is hard to come by. Here’s some of the best we’ve gotten over the years.
In space, nobody can hear you litigate.
The open nature of email addresses on journal sites may be feeding the email harvesting machine for academic emails. Worse, it may also be exposing these for potentially fraudulent activity.
eLife is beginning to accept papers, but is it proper for them to promote papers they’ve accepted without having published the final versions? What will their approach be to media embargoes?
A new paper finds unexpected disturbances around p-value ranges approaching 0.05. Is there something going on beyond mere science?
A new initiative seeks to solve the reproducibility problem in science, but instead seems to be creating more of a drag on research funds, ignoring the incentives of scientists, and raising barriers to its very utilization.
The potential higher education funding bubble may be more likely to burst, with the LIBOR scandal revealing another weakness in the system, trends in admissions and discounting showing the effects of the recession, and American politics locked up in partisan nonsense.
What once appeared to be a lopsided ruling has, in its final form, turned into something much more definitive.
Retracted papers continue to persist on public websites, in institutional repositories and personal libraries years after they are formally retracted. What can be done to help correct the scientific record?
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about how not-for-profit governance may be a root cause of middling results and blunted strategies.
I’m doing the same thing this weekend I’ve done on the same weekend for over a decade. The video might help you understand why.
An interview with Ivan Oransky — physician, journalist, and co-founder of “Retraction Watch.”