Survey results on COVID pandemic impacts on researchers and educators across the disciplines, and implications for scholarly publishers.
The last morning of this year’s Fiesole Library Collection Retreat focused on the important topic of collaboration to improve scholarship. Read more in today’s post from Alice Meadows.
Quantitative analysis of researchers’ use of scholarly networks shows that they are more likely to be used for individual interests than for collaborative purposes.
A collaborative venture between Oxford University Press and the University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library exemplifies a new approach to library publishing, one that could be replicated elsewhere with relative ease and that offers potentially huge benefits to scholarship.
Would adding a big flatscreen TV to my office might make a difference? Yes, in big and important ways.
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.
The age of collaboration indicates some adjacent sources of value are emerging. Since adjacency is relative, how can publishers ensure that the central pieces remain?
Can nearly 3,000 individuals really be authors on a single paper?