The Secret to Your Perfect Look — By Adobé
The secret to a beautiful you? Just apply this, and all your concerns about your appearance can disappear.
The secret to a beautiful you? Just apply this, and all your concerns about your appearance can disappear.
Follow the money in academic publishing, and you find ponds that resemble the larger lakes of academia in general. By mimicking endowment practices originating at large universities, are not-for-profits limiting their ability to grow?
Can tweets predict future citations? A study of article tweets raises validity and ethical concerns.
Amazon’s retail juggernaut has many people upset, but perhaps we should all reflect on the fact that a company devoted to customer service, thin margins, and a long-term disciplined strategy can thrive.
A controversial request that two journals censor full data reporting for fear of bioterror raises many questions, points to precedents, and hints at a better way to handle the problem than stifling scientific information.
As we continue to measure the number of papers, citations, and the combination, perhaps we should be measuring a much lower number — the number of studies that can be replicated after publication.
Editors need to act more like publishers, and publishers need to have more editorial skills. Will the demands of the Age of Attention finally mend the editorial-business divide?
Two great examples of books that contain more error than fact raise some important questions of what belongs in a library, and the purpose of acquisitions practices.
The vaunted review article gets a neat little send-up, and reminds us that part of the value of humor is that it keeps you loose and helps you retain a skeptical perspective.
Is plagiarism of fiction less of a problem for publishers? Another tale of pilfered prose seems to indicate that checking for plagiarism isn’t something book publishers care about . . . yet.
The rhetoric of “open” seeks to rally science to some higher state, but it’s not clear what “open science” means, why it’s any better, and what the risks of its adoption might be.
In my last posting, I posed four questions brought to my mind by the Aaron Swartz case. Here, I propose what I think are reasonable answers to those questions. The result is kind of a long post, but hey, it’s the weekend. Tell your spouse that the yard work will have to wait; you’re busy helping to solve the fundamental structural problems of the scholarly information marketplace.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the allegations against Swartz are proved and that he’s convicted. What would his case mean? It seems to me that it raises a number of questions that have received insufficient attention up until now.
Allowing authors access to anti-plagiarism software makes pragmatic sense when you consider the demands scientific journals place on authors for perfect English, the pressures of group authorship, and the incrementalism of most papers. Perhaps it could even do more.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.