There are still barriers and hesitations around open research practices. Erika Pastrana and Simon Adar suggest that publishers and technology platforms can better support authors and drive uptake.
Digital transformation in submission and peer review offers improvements for publications and a better experience for researchers and journal staff.
Robert Harington talks to Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer for Springer Nature in this new series of perspectives from some of Publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and profit sectors of our industry.
The President of the American Nuclear Society explains why the Nelson Memo may cause trepidation but bring opportunity.
Robert Harington talks to Mandy Hill, Managing Director of Academic Publishing at Cambridge University Press in this new series of perspectives from some of publishing’s leaders across the non-profit and profit sectors of our industry.
GitHub and Microsoft are being sued for using open source software without creator attribution in alleged violation of open licensing requirements. What implications does this have for the scholarly literature and Creative Commons licenses?
New arrangements planned in Texas and India move us away from a universal transition to OA, and back towards the Big Deal.
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz discusses PLOS’s Open Science Indicators initiatives and shares initial results.
Thoughts on open access (OA) from the perspectives of both the publisher and library communities at the Charleston Meeting.
An interview by @lisalibrarian with Simon Linacre, author of “The Predator Effect”
Erich van Rijn looks at the University of California’s Luminos open access books program and reviews lessons learned and what is needed for such programs to succeed.
Funder guidance is too vague when it comes to identifiers and metadata. It needs to get specific to be effective.
eLife’s recent announcement that it will reinvent itself as a “service that reviews preprints” has generated much discussion over recent weeks. But what are the primary drivers and goals, and what might we all learn from this bold experiment?
Though open access indicators within a given publishing platform are relatively consistent, significant inconsistency across platforms likely creates user confusion.
Is there an entrenched stasis in scholarly communication in which the core elements of the system have not been much moved by the revolutions happening around us?