Why is it so frustrating and difficult to talk about scholarly-communication reform, and why do those conversations seem to involve virtually all members of the scholcomm ecosystem except for authors?
A tour of four major “megajournals” and some of their neighbors finds a few common approaches and a few distinguishing features, but the entire category may need to be rethought given the lack of “mega” generally among the set.
Scholars are citing an increasingly aging collection of scholarship. Does this reflect the growing ease with accessing the literature, or a structural shift in the way science is funded–and the way scientists are rewarded?
A recent survey of authors by Taylor and Francis reveals growing acceptance of open access publishing; however, Creative Commons licensing may still pose a problem.
Last week, an editorial in Nature highlighted the problem of the proliferating number of authors on papers. Following a 2012 symposium at Harvard University, a small group has proposed a taxonomy of contributor roles that would add details to an author list and have tested that among a group of authors. Scholarly publishers should consider adopting this taxonomy to improve the accuracy and granularity to improve attribution and the assignment of credit.
As online systems for discovering and distributing content have grown, so too has the need for unambiguous identification of people and the parties exchanging that content. Several systems have been in development in the past couple of years, notably the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) and the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) system. How these two systems relate, engage each other, and serve community needs isn’t always clear. In hopes of alleviating some of the confusion, I sat down with Laura Dawson from Bowker to discuss the International Standard Name Identifier, how it relates to ORCID, and other issues surrounding identity management systems.
When your blog lets you know it’s impressed with your production level, you know you’ve done something that’s both impressive and regrettable.
Open access publishing is a viable option, with gold OA gaining traction. But concerns remain, and funding is uncertain.
After a summer full of interesting posts and time to think, a bit of reflection seems in order as we head into Fall.
How can you make a movie about why some writing is good, some bad? This trailer makes it seem not only possible, but interesting.
A new study suggests that reference works can be created cheaply and effectively through only mildly organized collaborations. Have we been missing a critical contribution of peer-review? Does it suggest that post-publication won’t review won’t be very effective?
If submission fees result in a more sustainable business model, why are open access publishers opposed to the idea?
A bone-rattling interview with someone who may haunt the medical literature.
Peter Brantley has written an insightful piece on some of the implications of Amazon’s much-vaunted high royalty payments to authors who publish directly with them (that is, with Amazon).
Is it ethical for editors to alert authors of relevant in-journal articles?