The intended beneficiary of public access is “the American public,” and we need so much more than access to the biomedical literature.
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
With no clear benefits to researchers, a frustrating user experience, and no penalties for non-compliance, ClinicalTrials.gov is becoming increasingly irrelevant to clinical researchers and the world at large with each passing day. What does this mean for public access to research results? Is an obligation to patients putting themselves at risk in trials being breached? Why has it failed to live up to its potential?
On the three year anniversary of the OSTP Public Access memo, AIP’s Fred Dylla takes a look at the significant progress made.
The hidden costs of data availability policies.
Proposals to get more money to younger researchers shine a light on the aging cadre of academic researchers and the lack of succession we risk with current practices.
New evidence suggests that US taxpayers are not the major beneficiaries of the NIH Public Access Policy, and that even within the NIH, there has been some unease about the situation.
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design.
A new proposal regarding federally funded data is leaked. What might a broad policy for public access mean?
Strategic planning is an essential activity for not-for-profit publishers, but many organizations approach this activity with dread. This post proposes a better way to think of strategic planning and outlines its essential nature.
Articles deposited into PubMed Central responsible for drawing readers from journal site, a study finds.
A new book on the economics shaping science is a treasure trove of facts arranged sensibly and put wonderfully into context. In addition, it’s an example of how to design a print book.
In a business environment characterized by risks, upstart innovations, and even contempt for the law, publishers have to ward off threats the old-fashioned way, by out-innovating their rivals and preempting new services.
A new report for the Center of Economic Development suffers from a strong bias in its authorship. But beyond that, its implicit complaints, if addressed completely, would lead to a trainwreck in the world of scholarly communication. Is nobody thinking these things through?
While publishers are the targets of complaints about keeping taxpayer-funded research from reaching the public, where is the outcry when studies show less than 1/4 mandatory reporting requirements are fulfilled by researchers?