This tag is associated with 31 posts

Can Highly Selective Journals Survive on APCs?

Are the APC levels set for high-end OA journals too low to be sustainable? Are there other ways that might help high-end OA journals pay their way? Continue reading

Will Citation Distributions Reduce Impact Factor Abuses?

Publishing a histogram of a journal’s citation distribution won’t alleviate Impact Factor abuse. At best, it will be ignored. At worse, it will generate confusion. Continue reading

On Moose and Medians (Or Why We Are Stuck With The Impact Factor)

If Thomson Reuters can calculate Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, why can’t they deliver a simple median score? Continue reading

Interface Design: How We Depict Texting and the Internet in Film

The display of new types of information is a constant challenge for scholarly publishers. A look at how filmmakers portray texting and computer use offers some insight into effective interface design. Continue reading

Exhibition Prohibition — Why Shouldn’t Publishers Celebrate an Improved Impact Factor?

A trend toward shaming journals that promote their impact factors needs to be rolled back. Impact factors are journal metrics. It’s the other uses that need to be curtailed. Continue reading

The Mystery of a “Partial” Impact Factor

The lack of an Impact Factor is one reason that new journals have difficulty attracting submissions. Some journals, such as eLife and Cell Reports, qualify for an Impact Factor based on partial data. This post explores how that happens. Continue reading

How Much Does It Cost eLife to Publish an Article?

Adding to the discussion of APCs, eLife’s financials suggest that being competitive with some major journals means the journal is expensive to run. Continue reading

Data Detectives: Investigating What is, and What is Not, Measured

Businesses are using more data than ever to inform decision making. While the truly large Big Data may be limited to the likes of Google, Amazon, and Facebook, publishers are nonetheless managing more data than ever before. While the technical challenges may be less daunting with smaller data sets, there remain challenges in interpreting data and in using it to make informed decisions. Perhaps the most daunting challenge is in understanding the limitations of the dataset: What is being measured and, just as importantly, what is not being measured? What inferences and conclusions can be drawn and what is mere conjecture? Where are the bricks and mortar solid and where does the foundation give way beneath our feet? Continue reading

PubMed Central Revealed — Reviewing and Interpreting the Findings of a Surprising 2013

As requested, here is a summary of all the things found so far through the FOIA requests regarding PubMed Central — from eLife to BMC to JMLA to conflicts of interest to coverups. It’s quite a fetch. Continue reading

This Takes the Prize — Editor of New Luxury OA Journal Boycotts Luxury Subscription Journals

The editor of eLife, on the eve of accepting his Nobel Prize, publishes an article designed to give his journal a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, the errors, lack of disclosure of his incentives, and inappropriate dismissal of incentives made the social graph light up with derision. Continue reading

The Silent Dog — Why Didn’t the PubMed Central National Advisory Committee Even Bark?

The PMC NAC, facing controversies about its oversight functions and seeing the focus of its oversight embroiled in a public scandal, said nothing about these topics at its latest meeting. Continue reading

PubMed Central and eLife — New Documents Reveal More Evidence of Impropriety and Bias

New documents show that the Director of the NCBI was deeply involved in getting eLife launched on PubMed Central, that NLM staff were uneasy about the shortcuts taken to make it happen, and that eLife was largely driving the bus throughout. Continue reading

Game of Papers: eLife, BMC, PLoS and EMBO Announce New Peer Review Consortium

eLife, BioMed Central (BMC), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) will be forming a new peer review consortium based around the concept of what eLife calls “portable peer review.” Continue reading

PubMed Central and F1000 Research — More Signs of Favoritism and Activism, and More Conflicts of Interest

More indications of favoritism and cronyism, this time stretching back from F1000 Research to BioMed Central, and more mismanaged conflicts of interests. The common thread may be a new “old boys” network. Continue reading

Don’t Miss Another Hour with the Chefs, and Other Highlights — The SSP Annual Meeting in San Francisco

The Chefs are headed to San Francisco for another lively session closing out the SSP Annual Meeting. A range of topics and opinions will serve as dessert for a terrific meeting. Continue reading

“By Scientists, For Scientists” — Deconstructing a Misguided, Misleading, and Thoughtless Cliché

A common marketing cliche turns out to be empty of anything but rhetorical power when examined more carefully. Continue reading

The eLife Story Continues — Evasions Seem the Best We Can Expect

The continued silence from major funders involved in the eLife-PubMed Central scandal is creating a noise all its own. Continue reading

Extension and Conflation — How the NLM’s Confusing Brands Have Us All Mixed Up

The National Library of Medicine has a couple of powerful brands, but they’ve become conflated and compromised by poor brand management. Ultimately, their brand value is derived from the value of the MEDLINE brand, which may now be spread too thin. Continue reading

Don’t Shoot the Messenger — Keeping Our Eye on the Real Meaning of the eLife-PubMed Central Scandal

Attacks — both overt and covert — from OA advocates and NIH/NLM phantoms come in the wake of the posts revealing how eLife and PubMed Central coordinated activities and kept secrets. Continue reading

Why Were PubMed Central and eLife Discussing PeerJ?

When PubMed Central expedited eLife, PeerJ wondered why. Emails within PMC suggest they were tempted to help PeerJ in the same way. They even talked with eLife about how to handle things. Continue reading

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

December 2016
« Nov    
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.