Springer Establishes a Beachhead on the Desktop with Acquisition of Papers
Springer’s acquisition of Papers shifts the publisher into the workflow, and provides a unique opportunity to become a unifying resource.
Springer’s acquisition of Papers shifts the publisher into the workflow, and provides a unique opportunity to become a unifying resource.
More articles are published by PubMed Central at the behest of eLife. It seems taxpayer-funded publishing is just fine for this new group.
eLife clarifies its media policies, adopting the mask of an enlightened approach that actually makes it harder for everyone to generate much attention.
A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?
More information emerges about PubMed Central, its processes, its relationship with eLife, and its role as a technology provider. Overall, it looks like certain OA friends get special treatment, and the processes you think occur are often short-circuited and may not even be tracked.
Nate Silver’s new book tackles many topics — Big Data, the problem with scientific statistics, chess, baseball, gambling — with style and substance. There’s a lot of signal here.
Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief.
The dark matter of social sharing may be visible now, thanks to some smart theory, not more data.
Joe Esposito, with his colleagues Kizer Walker and Terry Ehling, has been working on an analysis of patron-driven acquisitions (PDA) for the past year. Joe has been posting early drafts of sections of the report on this research on the Kitchen. The full report is now available and can be downloaded here.
Can the Internet create a new and more cooperative way of arguing?
AAP and Google have reached a confidential settlement over Google Books. But the larger Authors Guild case remains.
When the stakes are scholarly, peer-review works well. What about when the stakes are life-altering?
A recent attempt by SPARC and others to assess “How Open Is It?” shows how complex OA publishing is, but also fails to accurately represent the potential complexities in many areas.
And the sky rains ping pong balls, as this simple experiment provides both audible and visible entertainment.
By allowing free commercial use of OA articles, current CC licenses may shift costs to researchers, presage an unsustainable information economy, and ultimately work against their stated goals. A commercially viable option might actually prove more sustainable.