Are Scientists Reading Less? Apparently, Scientists Didn't Read This Paper
When novel, newsworthy results are discovered to be wrong, is that still news?
When novel, newsworthy results are discovered to be wrong, is that still news?
The Journal of Cultural Anthropology is now becoming open access. This points to one path a professional society can follow if it cannot derive significant income from library sales or if its membership is more interested in wider dissemination of material than the uses income from journals can be put to.
The “publish or perish” culture has created a major mega-journal. But are its boundaries and standards built properly to avoid becoming an enabler of that culture?
A recent research report from Simba Information analyzes the market for publications in the social sciences and humanities.
Revisiting Todd Carpenter’s 2012 post on the value of altmetrics.
A study of journal advertising support in large, multi-specialty journals fails on many key fronts.
The Jack Andraka story develops further. SSP pages on Wikipedia are taken down by a disgruntled commentator. And Andraka’s draft paper gets a preliminary review, and both the reviewers and Andraka admit it’s less game-changing than the media has led us to believe.
The vaccine-autism papers were a hoax. But a lingering controversy around the diagnosis of a celebrity’s child and her insistence on preserving her version of the facts only shows how stubborn misinformation can be.
A strange trip down memory lane, when scientific articles funded by page charges were considered advertisements. Are we entering another era of “articles as advertising,” only this time without any limitations?
This is a research report, based on a grant from the American Society of Civil Engineers to explore the potential for adverse economic impact on journals from imposed public access embargoes
This is an announcement of a university press research project, which includes a link to a survey we hope every book publisher will fill out. The project is sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The focus is on how university presses can sell books, both print and digital, directly from their Web sites. The project report will cover current practices and recommend courses of action.
The story of a teenage science whiz who used free information sources to create a novel cancer screening test may be full of holes. Whether it is or not, it no longer seems the clear, happy story the media wanted to tell.
A new poll finds that trust in scientists and science journalists is fairly low. But are the two questions separable when it comes to the general public?
As requested, here is a summary of all the things found so far through the FOIA requests regarding PubMed Central — from eLife to BMC to JMLA to conflicts of interest to coverups. It’s quite a fetch.
As the scholarly communication environment changes, so does the monograph–and the nature of scholarship itself. A few years from now, what will these terms even mean?