We’re taking the last week of summer off. To hold you over, a brief book review, some rare concert footage and some musings on memory and storytelling.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2014 piece on the competition among journal publishers to acquire the rights to professional society publications. As the marketplace continues to consolidate, these pressures have only increased.
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…
Richard Feynman, in 1964, explains how science works.
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?
Do you remember when Darth Vader said, “Luke, I am your father”? Are you sure about that?
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.
Musician Jonathan Coulton expresses his disillusionment with what the internet has become.
Hypotheses that flatter our own preconceptions and biases are incredibly seductive, and the temptation to accept them at face value can be nearly irresistible. But in a world that seems to be drifting away from analytical rigor and fact-based decision-making, the ability to resist that temptation is more essential than ever.
A neuroscientist tries to explain his research to different audiences, from a five year-old to a colleague.
How much can a single editor distort the citation record? Investigation documents rogue editor’s coercion of authors to cite his journal, papers.
Do scholarly and scientific publishers risk more than they realize when they embrace modern media spectacle and seek to marginalize the PDF?
The new book by Tom Nichols, “The Death of Expertise,” is not perfect, but it is an important exploration of existential threats to science, education, and representative democracy.
Are we thinking about predatory publishing the wrong way? Are researchers deliberately choosing these journals, and if so, what are the incentives driving this decision?