In light of the recent anniversary of the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, we revisit Rick Anderson’s post on how journalists flag unsupported claims and blatant falsehoods, and whether preprint platforms should do the same.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health are widely discussed in the media, but responsible discussion is vital, and academic publishers have an important role to play. Please be aware that this article talks about suicide.
Journalists are increasingly flagging unsupported claims and blatant falsehoods–it’s time for preprint platforms to do the same.
Sabine Louët and Karla Fallon discuss how to realize the opportunities for better communicating research results to a broader audience.
Two videos offer tips on separating the actual research done in medical studies from the often over-hyped media coverage.
Even Silicon Valley is finding that recurring revenues (aka, subscriptions) lead to more valuable businesses, while helping smaller companies thrive.
Trolls dominate for many reasons — economics, technology, our predilection for sordid entertainment. But they’ve chilled online discourse and damaged civil exchanges, even making some publishers reluctant to take full advantage of the potential of the Internet. Are we ready for v2.0 of commenting?
Science’s historical progress can’t be assumed. It has to be reclaimed, re-established. That’s more difficult in a fragmented information space geared for extremism.
The information war requires changes — new research priorities, new personal and professional boundaries, higher editorial hurdles, and a hardened infrastructure.
Do scholarly and scientific publishers risk more than they realize when they embrace modern media spectacle and seek to marginalize the PDF?
The new book by Tom Nichols, “The Death of Expertise,” is not perfect, but it is an important exploration of existential threats to science, education, and representative democracy.
As we’ve absorbed and adopted the information economy assumptions peddled by Silicon Valley, social isolation has increased, the definition of “fact” has become slippery, and the scientific record has become more superficial, less reliable, and more transitory. In fact, confirmation bias seems to have become our main operating principle. Maybe a change in economic incentives and greater skepticism across the board could help — all driven by more humans at the controls.
A recommendation of a wonderful short story by Joseph O’Neill, which should serve as a stocking stuffer this Christmas.
Robert Harington comments on a New York Times article by Kate Murphy , published on Sunday 13th March, 2016, suggesting that when journalists write such an article they, do not fan the flames of fundamentalism, recognize the complexity at hand, and understand that there is a constructive debate to be had.
A number of recent articles have posited the idea that information distribution on the Internet is undergoing a massive change – driven by the failure of site advertising and subscriptions as a general purpose economic model, and the rise of mobile powered social media as the discovery tool of these times. To what extent is this way of thinking applicable to scholarly publishing?