An Update from Inside the Kitchen — Progress and Potential
After a summer full of interesting posts and time to think, a bit of reflection seems in order as we head into Fall.
After a summer full of interesting posts and time to think, a bit of reflection seems in order as we head into Fall.
The open nature of email addresses on journal sites may be feeding the email harvesting machine for academic emails. Worse, it may also be exposing these for potentially fraudulent activity.
A review of William Dean Howells’ 1890 novel, “A Hazard of New Fortunes,” which is about finding new business models for media businesses. The book describes an economic landscape that is eerily similar to our own.
eLife is beginning to accept papers, but is it proper for them to promote papers they’ve accepted without having published the final versions? What will their approach be to media embargoes?
The potential higher education funding bubble may be more likely to burst, with the LIBOR scandal revealing another weakness in the system, trends in admissions and discounting showing the effects of the recession, and American politics locked up in partisan nonsense.
What once appeared to be a lopsided ruling has, in its final form, turned into something much more definitive.
A nifty little experiment across a two-part New York Times column shows that some aspect of authority resides in not only your words, but the typeface they appear in.
Retracted papers continue to persist on public websites, in institutional repositories and personal libraries years after they are formally retracted. What can be done to help correct the scientific record?
The “listener support” model works in some cases. This fact alone suggests it may not have a robust future in the funding of scholarly initiatives.
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about how not-for-profit governance may be a root cause of middling results and blunted strategies.
When we hear “disruption” invoked, we think it’s about technology and innovation. What if there are other types of disruption? What if there isn’t a market demanding change, but others demanding disruption?
I’m doing the same thing this weekend I’ve done on the same weekend for over a decade. The video might help you understand why.
An interview with Ivan Oransky — physician, journalist, and co-founder of “Retraction Watch.”
When there’s a lot at stake, peer review still helps to separate the best information from the rest.
A recent book tells the story of how technology companies — in the guise of advocates of “open” — have gutted content and culture businesses and the creative ranks that depend on them.