New documents show that the Director of the NCBI was deeply involved in getting eLife launched on PubMed Central, that NLM staff were uneasy about the shortcuts taken to make it happen, and that eLife was largely driving the bus throughout.
An interview from April 2012, which remains as relevant today in explaining the incentives driving much of the behavior in academic research centers and scientific and scholarly publishing.
Peter Brantley of Hypothes.is talks about efforts to bring an open layer of annotation to the Web, and what they mean for scholarly communication.
What can be learned from John Bohannon’s investigative study of open access publishers?
Green Open Access can lead to the cancellation of subscriptions to journals. The environment for OA, however, is full of nuance and resists easy characterization.
Three Scholarly Kitchen chefs talk about the uses and misuses of the term “disruption” in describing what’s going on in the scholarly publishing market.
Peter Binfield talks about progress at PeerJ since the innovative OA journal’s launch, and where the journal is headed.
Recent comments on a post about Gold OA in the UK dissected a lot of assertions we commonly see, and bear a closer reading.
The UK government’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee issued a report this week that offers a harsh rebuke to the RCUK’s proposed plans to drive the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing in scholarly journals.
While open access remains a hot topic in our industry, we may not be discussing the most difficult aspects. Worse, OA proponents themselves may not be answering some of the questions that are now arising as a broader swath of academics, scientists, and administrators become aware of OA.
Although many people claim to know what scientists want, the author’s own ongoing survey has come up with results that are at odds with most conventional wisdom. This post summarizes those findings and identifies a near-universal view held by many scientists.
Publication in the humanities and social sciences isn’t the reporting of research. It’s the production of a compelling argument, based on a combination of research and interpretation.
eLife, BioMed Central (BMC), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) will be forming a new peer review consortium based around the concept of what eLife calls “portable peer review.”
The question addressed here is not whether we in the academy should “take back publishing” from the commercial scholarly publishers, but rather what the options for doing so might be, and whether any of those options seems feasible at the moment.
More indications of favoritism and cronyism, this time stretching back from F1000 Research to BioMed Central, and more mismanaged conflicts of interests. The common thread may be a new “old boys” network.