The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? What about patents on publicly funded research? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
Robert Harington reviews a delightful new book that reminds you of how delightful our publishing world can be. Printer’s Error: Irreverent Stories From Publishing History by Rebecca Romney and J. P. Romney.
The superficial distinction between non-profits and for-profits bears scrutiny. What are the true differences? Is either structure innately superior?
Changing the culture is the topic of this year’s FORCE2017 conference in October. It’s typically not a priority, in scholarly communications or in business – but it should be…
The rise of mobile is cementing business model expectations and driving new monopolies, but the ethics, incentives, and consequences of these models need to be considered.
Trolls dominate for many reasons — economics, technology, our predilection for sordid entertainment. But they’ve chilled online discourse and damaged civil exchanges, even making some publishers reluctant to take full advantage of the potential of the Internet. Are we ready for v2.0 of commenting?
We once assumed taxpayer-funding meant information availability. The new US government is now actively hiding scientific data, imperiling our understanding of the world.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2012 interview with the author of “How Economics Shape Science”.
Revisiting our review of Paula Stephan’s book after her keynote talk at the SSP Annual Meeting.
At the Researcher to Reader conference, a volunteer project was launched to define a new suite of indicators to help researchers judge publishers, rather than the other way around.
Algorithms behave in ways even their creators can’t understand, yet they dominate how we share and see information. Do we need a “Three Laws for Algorithms”?
Science’s historical progress can’t be assumed. It has to be reclaimed, re-established. That’s more difficult in a fragmented information space geared for extremism.
It may seem as if it would be difficult to defend or justify a blatant piracy operation like Sci-Hub. But it can be done, if you’re willing to overlook certain facts and advance certain tenuous moral arguments.