Upstream from the work of scholarly publishers, it’s the middle of the deceptively paced academic summer when scholars I know are often focused on conferences, research trips, and writing. Summer isn’t as frantic as the academic year, when every other […]
The general fragmentation of media and society has profound implications, and may explain to some extent the fragmentation being seen in higher education and scholarly publishing.
It’s a question that has lurked around the edges of our campfire for a while — what if publishers paid authors of research papers? Quickly, it becomes clear why this is very unlikely to happen — for financial, ethical, and practical reasons.
We’re in a thicket of stories proclaiming “science is broken” and that stealing articles isn’t stealing because, publishers. This cottage industry of journal bashing and science trashing has reached a crescendo. What drives it? And what more important stories are being missed in the maelstrom?
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.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
Yesterday saw the release of the 2013 Impact Factors for scholarly journals. We present a look back at some favorite posts examining the Impact Factor.
Revisiting Todd Carpenter’s 2012 post on the value of altmetrics.
The question addressed here is not whether we in the academy should “take back publishing” from the commercial scholarly publishers, but rather what the options for doing so might be, and whether any of those options seems feasible at the moment.
Framing “altmetrics” as alternative may limit their potential — they have to be “alternative” to something already in existence. How do we move new measures robustly into the mainstream?
PressForward has a lot of potential, but a lot of potential barriers to overcome. How it fares will depend on how much the larger culture of academia is interested in change.
Humor about scientific misconduct may reflect a deeper, more serious side of academic culture gone wrong.
Ithaka S+R has published a report on libraries and open access. Libraries are still important in the lives of scholars, but the trends are not in their favor. Open access doesn’t seem to be meeting scholars’ needs.
A guide to the values, cultures and scholarly communication behaviors of academics. A must read for publishers and technologists.
The fact that scientific publishing hasn’t been disrupted may be a sign of a problem, not an advantage. A future choice may be disruption or irrelevance. Which will we choose?