This tag is associated with 20 posts

Revisiting: The Price of Posting — PubMed Central Spends Most of Its Budget Handling Author Manuscripts

Revisiting Kent Anderson’s post based on his FOIA request documents show that PubMed Central spends most of its money tagging author manuscripts, and that its stricter rules for NIH authors may double its costs. 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

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

Should the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) Stop Using PMC As Its Publishing Platform?

Using free government infrastructure that’s not available to everyone else raises questions of fairness, which lead to questions of harm. But who is harmed may be both obvious and subtle. 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

The Price of Posting — PubMed Central Spends Most of Its Budget Handling Author Manuscripts

New documents obtained via an ongoing FOIA request show that PubMed Central spends most of its money tagging author manuscripts, and that its stricter rules for NIH authors may double its costs. 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

Joining a CHORUS, Publishers Offer the OSTP a Proactive, Modern, and Cost-Saving Public Access Solution

A proposed partnership between publishers and the US government in response to the OSTP memorandum may show the way forward for public-private networked information solutions. Continue reading

Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Susan King on CHORUS

An interview with Susan King of the CHORUS steering group about the publisher response to the OSTP public access memorandum. Continue reading

Redundant and Expensive – How F1000 Research’s Model Reveals the Root Problems of PubMed Central

More internal PubMed Central emails show quite clearly that PMC is wasting taxpayers’ money solving problems publishers have already solved. Continue reading

PubMed Central Reduces Publisher Traffic, Study Shows

PubMed Central reduces article downloads from 14 biomedical society websites when articles are made freely available after embargo. 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

Pulling the Wool Over Their Eyes — The PubMed National Advisory Committee and Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest at PubMed Central have been mismanaged, and seem to have led to loading the National Advisory Committee with Wellcome representatives, among other things. Continue reading

Something’s Rotten in Bethesda, Indeed — How PubMed Central Came to Help Launch and Initially Publish eLife

Circumstantial evidence has become direct evidence — that eLife requested publication in PMC; that PMC collaborated with eLife; that PMC sought to conceal its preferential treatment; and that systems and processes at the NLM regarding PMC inclusion are unclear and open to abuse and misuse. Continue reading

PubReader — Obscuring Journal Branding for the Sake of Repository Branding

A new way to view journal content in PubMed Central casts journal branding aside for a uniform PMC approach. Continue reading

The Hall of Mirrors — Trying to Explain Why Users Value Free Content Differently

Why would free content be differentially accessed across versions of it, and across publications? A dive into PLoS data leads to a potentially reassuring answer. Continue reading

What PubMed Central’s Drag on Publisher Traffic Could Mean Financially

When you think through all the effects stealing traffic has on online publishing businesses, PubMed Central’s competitive presence looms large — whether you sell subscriptions, ads, or APCs. Continue reading

PubMed Central or OA Central — More Strange Behaviors at PMC and NLM Paint a Portrait of Biases and Poor Process

More information emerges about PubMed Central, its processes, its relationship with eLife, and its role as a technology provider. Overall, it looks like certain OA friends get special treatment, and the processes you think occur are often short-circuited and may not even be tracked. Continue reading

Something’s Rotten in Bethesda — The Troubling Tale of PubMed Central, PubMed, and eLife

Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief. Continue reading

Is PubMed Central Complementing or Competing with Journal Publishers?

Articles deposited into PubMed Central responsible for drawing readers from journal site, a study finds. 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.