Autotuning Science
The latest clip from Symphony of Science sets famous astronomers to music.
Think. Check. Submit. (How to Have Trust in Your Publisher.)
Charlie Rapple reports on “Think. Check. Submit.”, a campaign to help researchers learn who they can trust when they are seeking to publish their work.
The IgNobel Prize Celebrates an Anniversary
The 25th Annual IgNobel Prize Ceremony captured on video.
Proof of Concept, Proof of Program, and Proof of Scale in Scholarly Communication
New scholarly-communication initiatives have to do more than just demonstrate proof of concept: they have to demonstrate ongoing sustainability (what we might call “proof of program”) and the ability to create desirable products in the amounts needed (what we might call “proof of scale”). What do these look like when they’re achieved, and how are some recent initiatives doing?
Revisiting: The Editor — A Vital Role We Barely Talk About Anymore
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2014 post on the importance of editors–how much of what we see as a failure of “peer review” is really a failure of editorial oversight?
Deceptive Publishing: Why We Need a Blacklist, and Some Suggestions on How to Do It Right
Predatory publishing is a big and complex problem; so is calling out and shaming deceptive publishers by means of blacklisting. Is that something we should even do, and can it be done fairly, constructively, and helpfully? Yes, and here are some suggestions how.
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
A look at common terms that are improperly used to describe science.
Revisiting: Is Access to the Research Paper the Same Thing as Access to the Research "Results"?
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? Are funding agencies creating a false equivalency by confusing the two? And does this confusion favor researchers in some fields over others? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
Advocacy, Analysis, and the Vital Importance of Discriminating Between Them
As the scholarly communication world becomes more complex and the issues we deal with become more politically and emotionally fraught, it becomes increasingly essential that we be able to tell the difference between anlaysis and advocacy. What markers can we look for to help us discriminate between them?
Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Talking Publication Ethics
A conversation with COPE’s Charlotte Haug.
Deni Auclair Discusses Outsell’s Open Access Report
Rick Anderson interviews Deni Auclair, VP and Lead Analyst for Outsell Inc., about the recently published report “Open Access 2015: Market Size, Share, Forecast, and Trends.”
Guest Post: INASP’s Anne Powell — Availability Does Not Equal Access
INASP’s Anne Powell discusses the complexity of discovery, and the work INASP is doing to bring together tools, technologies, infrastructure and perhaps most importantly, relationships built on an understanding of the needs of users.
Academia Versus Academia.edu: Should Tech Business Needs Trump Scholarly Culture?
Should the fast and loose rules of startup company business models and the spin-oriented language of advertising be given free rein in the scholarly community?
Revisiting: On the Likelihood of Academia “Taking Back” Scholarly Publishing
Revisiting Rick Anderson’s 2013 post on what the options for the academy to take control of scholarly publishing, and whether any of those options seems feasible.
Should We Retire the Term "Predatory Publishing"?
Those who argue that “predatory” behavior is not only a problem among author-pays OA publishers have a good point. But this raises another question: is the term “predatory” itself really useful in the context of scholarly communication?