Glass Houses and Straw Men — An Attempt to Assess the Quality of Statistical Analyses Fails Its Own Test
Do higher impact journals do a better job with their statistics? A study with a sexy title proves to be poorly designed and poorly reported.
The RCUK Open Access Policy Is Revised — Complexity, Confusion, and Conflicting Messages Abound
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach.
Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is — Is Gold OA Just a New Frontier for Nature?
Nature (the journal) announces unwavering support for Gold OA on the same day Nature (the company) announces a major Gold OA partnership. But Nature (the journal) doesn’t itself adopt Gold OA. Why not?
Taking Issue — A New York Times Editorial Mishandles the OSTP Memorandum
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design.
Rewarding Reviewers: Money, Prestige, or Some of Both?
Are editors, reviewers and authors ready for a commercial solution to peer review? Survey results are in!
It's FASTR — Is It Bettr?
Another bill designed to make taxpayer-funded research available raises old questions and familiar divides. Does it have a chance of generating a productive decision?
Validation vs. Filtration and Designation — Are We Mismarketing the Core Strengths of Peer Review?
Narrowing the definition of peer review to only validation standards, we may be exposing peer review in its least flattering light, while ignoring the more reliable and powerful ways in which peer review serves science.
Privatizing Peer Review — A Short Survey
Initiatives like Rubriq will succeed if they address the real needs of authors, reviewers, and editors. Take the survey and tell us what you think.
Extension and Conflation — How the NLM’s Confusing Brands Have Us All Mixed Up
The National Library of Medicine has a couple of powerful brands, but they’ve become conflated and compromised by poor brand management. Ultimately, their brand value is derived from the value of the MEDLINE brand, which may now be spread too thin.
An Interview With Keith Collier, Co-Founder of Rubriq
With the creation of Rubriq, co-founders Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier have broken new ground. Rubriq is an attempt to provide peer-review independent from journals.
A Taxonomy of Confusions
There are specific contributing factors to confusion and coherence. Understanding these, as well as your own strengths and weaknesses, can help you write, read, and edit better.
Backfire — An Argument That OA Is Better for Non-Profit Societies Demonstrates Just the Opposite
A blog post based on a talk purports to convince us that OA is good for not-for-profit societies. However, it accomplishes just the opposite once you get past the misinformation and misinterpretations.
Netherlands Heart Journal Editor Delivers Dutch Citation Treat
Editors have learned how to exploit a simple loophole in the calculation of the Impact Factor. Is it time to close that loophole?
Why the Moon Landing Could Not Have Been a Hoax — It Wasn't Technologically Possible to Fake It
A great analysis of why it was technologically impossible to fake the 1969 moon landing.
Mendeley, Connotea, and the Perils of Free Services
Free services and open access are distorting the publishing world. Will the big only get bigger?