Attempts to use new measurements to more finely predict or represent journal quality are bound to falter because of some qualities inherent to journals themselves.
Despite the increase in open access publishing, public access initiatives like Research4Life, INASP, the UK’s Access2Research pilot, and more are still playing a valuable role in making research publications more widely available, both to researchers outside of the developed world, and to the general public.
Why can’t researchers agree on whether Open Access is the cause of more citations or merely associated with better performing papers? The answer is in the methods.
Yesterday saw the release of the 2013 Impact Factors for scholarly journals. We present a look back at some favorite posts examining the Impact Factor.
How much of the book usage in a research library collection involves books from university presses? Findings from this case study suggests that the answers are complex and, to some degree, suprising.
FASEB’s Stand Up For Science competition winner brings perspective to the question of why we need to fund basic research.
A recent “Slate” article shows what can go wrong when we talk about “peer review” as if we all share a common definition about an unchanging phenomenon.
The Authors Guild’s lawsuit against HathiTrust over the latter’s massive library of digitized print books has been dismissed by the Second Circuit Court. What does this mean for libraries, authors, and readers?
A paper claiming to have identified “the 1%” in productive published researchers may suffer from problems with disambiguation, timing, and scope.
An overview of new tools available, to help us consider how publishing may better incorporate technology in the context of a connected society.
A ruse to self-review and self-recommend papers for publication leads to 60 retractions. Can we find a way to prevent this kind of identity fraud and its consequences?
NISO has released the results of their year long study of Altmetrics in draft form for comment.
Sometimes making something available as open access is viewed as an end in itself, but increasingly we are likely to see OA services work to bring the material they publish to wider audiences. This will involve the creation of new marketing services specific to OA. We have yet to determine how such services will be paid for.
A recent survey of authors by Taylor and Francis reveals growing acceptance of open access publishing; however, Creative Commons licensing may still pose a problem.
What do societies really think about Open Access? A recent survey, though small, provides some initial answers…