Uninformed, Unhinged, and Unfair — The Monbiot Rant
An inflammatory essay reveals its author to be neither well-informed or fair.
An inflammatory essay reveals its author to be neither well-informed or fair.
Rewarding scientists with cash bonuses when they publish in prestigious journals drives up submission rates but has no effect on publication success, a new study reports.
All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends.
Rebuttals are cited less, don’t change citation patterns for original papers, and generally fall flat. And you thought science was self-correcting?
Overburdened by supplemental data, journal limits publication to “essentials” plus non-article formats.
PressForward has a lot of potential, but a lot of potential barriers to overcome. How it fares will depend on how much the larger culture of academia is interested in change.
A new study being touted by Nicholas Carr reveals a lack of healthy skepticism and more problems with “methodologically sound.”
Revisiting a popular and important post — the editorial fallacy, that belief that more or better manuscripts can save you from disruptive change.
The membership business model for scholarly communications is built on a network of reciprocal relationships, where a member’s dues pay both for the privilege of publishing and the right to access.
The university press world is well established, but it is worth considering how one would go about a new press today. The key is not to do what the established presses do already, and do very well.
An entire issue of a society’s newsmagazine is taken down, and an editor resigns, after a slightly uncomfortable attempt at humor. We’re talkin’ ’bout overreaction.
Blogging still gets no respect. Is that because we’re more hidebound about our communication advances than the 16th century was?
Publishing supplemental files online now common, but commenting remains rare, a new study reports.
Rather than relying on journal prestige and bibliometric indicators, universities should consider paying experts to conduct institutional peer review, report recommends.
Alien life? Or just the will to publish, and some accomplices? While those in the field know the pecking order, those outside still get fooled.