It is now conference season, which for me means lots and lots of editorial board meetings. The next swing comes in the fall when the fiscal year comes to a close. With 35 journals in the American Society of Civil […]
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s post based on his FOIA request documents show that PubMed Central spends most of its money tagging author manuscripts, and that its stricter rules for NIH authors may double its costs.
As we explore the new world of data-driven discovery tools, we must also examine their utility, their trustworthiness and what impact they may have on the creative process.
A researcher’s core interests may be in a specific set of areas, but effective discovery also helps that researcher to stay aware of adjacent areas of interest or even potential areas of unknown interest. Personalized approaches to discovery can improve research efficiency without sacrificing serendipity.
SXSW Interactive 2015. It may be over but its impact is not. Highlights from SX and reasons why Interactive is beneficial to everyone in publishing and communication.
Lack of information about how books are actually used has resulted in a set of actions that don’t make solid economic sense. Now that more end-user information is becoming available, the book business is likely to adjust its practices.
Do publishers need to integrate the creation, management, delivery, and discovery of different content types? What best meets customer needs, optimizes resources, and encourages innovative new content products and services?
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers recently launched a consultation, requesting feedback from all stakeholders about their draft principles on article sharing on scholarly communication networks. Find out more about how and why these principles are needed and what the consultation hopes to achieve, n this interview with Fred Dylla, Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics, and project lead for the initiative.
Is there (ever) a good time to overhaul a publishers’ production system? If you care about your journals’ Impact Factor, the answer is “yes.”
Technology is great, but does it deserve top billing? Leon Wieseltier’s essay in the New York Times as well as articles by other academics raise a challenge to the information industry as a whole.
PeerJ’s first Impact Factor is not expected to surpass 2.000. Without the scale of PLOS ONE, PeerJ may need to seek a larger, diversified buyer. What the journal has to offer other publishers is less clear.
The infrastructure for complying with public access mandates is well under way, but a critical component for identifying funding agencies could use a little work.
The collection of end-user data is going to become more important for all publishers and may serve to describe those publishers that will be most successful in the coming years. Although data-collection is often thought to be a malignant instance of “Big Brotherism,” it may in fact be benign when implemented thoughtfully.
A social media campaign may have little (if any) effect on article readership, a recent study reports.
Altmetric’s annual top 100 list provides an opportunity to see what science reached the general public and to think more about what information altmetrics really provide.