Guest Post — Why Research Libraries Oppose the OMB Revisions to the Uniform Guidance
Today’s post explains how the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is responding to the proposed rule changes for US federal grants.
Today’s post explains how the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is responding to the proposed rule changes for US federal grants.
Today’s post features conversations with society publishing leaders resisting the proposed OMB rule change for federal research funding.
Today, we ask the Chefs how they (or their organizations) are responding to the proposed changes to how US federal research grant funds can be used.
Today’s post asks us to acknowledge the role of AI in peer review and ensure practical guidance and policies that help scholars respond with consistency and confidence.
The future of scholarly communication will not be determined by how powerful AI becomes, but by whether the research community remains clear about the purpose those capabilities are meant to serve and whether it can govern them together.
Today’s guest post is an urgent call for the SSP community to push back on the US government (OMB), which is poised to overhaul the concept of federal research grants.
China’s publishing ambitions create genuine competitive pressures, but they also open opportunities for collaboration and highlight challenges that neither side can address alone
China is no longer simply a major contributor to global research output; it is increasingly becoming a key force shaping the future of scholarly publishing. Understanding what is actually happening, and why, is the necessary first step before considering how publishers should respond.
New guidance from the US government on research funding makes publishing and journal subscription costs unallowable.
Publishers that lack a deliberate library relations strategy are making consequential decisions without important and useful community perspectives.
A new report suggests the NIH’s promised APC caps will reduce global OA spending. But so far, funder efforts to control publisher and author behavior have largely been ineffective. Here’s why.
This month’s Pulse Check survey focuses on our community’s views on advocacy, industry priorities, and challenges of engaging with policymakers and the public.
Today’s post calls for collective action to address the researcher identity verification gap in scholarly communications and champions STM’s Researcher identity group.
SSP’s Advocacy Task Force Co-chairs encourage members to participate in this month’s Pulse Check Survey on our collective advocacy activities.
There is more and more skepticism toward the role of publishers, a steady commoditization of publishing services, and growing fragmentation across the research ecosystem. If that is the case, the question is no longer what publishers do, but how that value is understood and extended.