Bamini Jayabalasingham, Ylann Schemm, and Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski present the takeaways of a new report by Elsevier, “The Researcher Journey Through a Gender Lens”.
Dr. Jie Xu from the Wuhan University of China offers a view of how Chinese researchers are reacting and are likely to alter their behavior in response to new policies governing research evaluation.
One way or another, the #scholcomm community is going to choose either a diversity of publishing models or a monoculture, because it can’t have both. How will this choice be made, and by whom?
In this article Robert Harington describes how scholarly societies are an indelible part of the research and support system for academics across many disciplines. Robert suggests rather than requiring societies to seek alternative revenue streams beyond publishing, why not turn that argument on its head and more fully support society and academic community life?
While some talk about global science, China’s skyrocketing investment in its scientific sector is causing real anxiety for Europe.
China is making great official strides in developing a system of scholarly communications. Tao Tao interviews two experts for their opinions on how international collaborations and internal developments are happening.
Bangladesh continues to make progress toward its vision of growth with a digital agenda, but good data and collaboration with researchers is important to ensure that the process is effective.
Robert Harington suggests that despite the critical role of scholarly societies in publishing and academia, the sad reality is it is the big corporate publishers who win.
Given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?
The Washington Post looks at the long history of vaccine skepticism.
On the eve of a peer review seminar in Australia, Alex Christopher interviews CSIRO’s Andrew Stammer and Publons’ Tiago Barros on the current state of peer review.
Could scholarly publishers’ skills and capacity be re-positioned to serve researchers at earlier stages in the research process, “upstream” of publication? Charlie Rapple shares findings from a survey of the communications needs of almost 10,000 researchers.
So does Sci-Hub lead libraries to cancel journals, or doesn’t it? Maybe the answer isn’t a simple yes or no.
What if, instead of enacting a caricature of Silicon Valley, Stanford recognized the future and threw its arms around Stanford University Press? That would be the smart move.
Two videos offer tips on separating the actual research done in medical studies from the often over-hyped media coverage.