The Future of Publishing: Do We Have It All Backwards?
Clever, clever, and oh so worth watching through to the end:
Clever, clever, and oh so worth watching through to the end:
So far, Web 2.0 tools for scientists have failed to gain much traction with researchers. Is this because they’re tools for talking about science rather than tools for doing science?
Rupert Murdoch’s recent moves have challenged the widely held notion that Google and the traffic it generates are essential to a successful web publishing business. Is it better to have lots of freeloading readers or a much smaller group of paying customers? Could the rumored search engine subsidies help support struggling scholarly publishing activities?
Scientist, editor, and OA advocate Jonathan A. Eisen rages against an infamous author-pays OA publisher.
Are user rating systems a good way of measuring the quality of an author’s research? More and more websites are abandoning 5-star rating systems as the results they give are deeply flawed. PLoS’ approach will probably suffer the same problems.
When an author conceals information, and a blog branded with a respectable newspaper plays along, it doesn’t engender confidence in the new information space.
Over time, many markets become dominated by low quality, cheap, “good enough” products. How is this common evolutionary pathway playing out in the world of scholarly publishing?
Providing incentives to reviewers may be key to improving the peer review process.
Access to the scientific literature by small and medium-sized businesses is good, although it could be a lot easier, according to a new report.
Unethical republication has created a unique opportunity to study the effect of journals on article citations.
European countries could save millions of Euros if they switched to open access publishing and self-archiving, a report suggests. But is this report based on valid assumptions?
With scientific information propagating in new ways, is the Impact Factor measuring what it was intended to measure?
The Bentham experiment suggests that a poorly managed payment system may be the root of a larger problem emerging in academic publishing.
Two new technologies are introduced, with very different scope and aims. As publishers, we need to think more like Wave and less like Bing.
New applications are coming out to help scholars, librarians, and STM publishers reach their missions and audiences. But how do they stack up?