A PLoS ONE article recently went viral, hitting the front page of Reddit and garnering an amazing amount of reader interest. This was great news for the journal and the paper’s authors, but raises questions for the notion of post-publication […]
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
PLoS turns its first surplus. What will this mean for an organization accustomed to acting like the rebel?
A traffic phenomenon from a post about PLoS ONE may indicate that impact factors are more important to authors than PLoS believes.
The movement to publish more and more demands that we find ways to preserve the trust we’ve built while taking advantage of the sunlight public availability can provide.
The OA financial model has morphed, and will continue to do so. The same realities will reveal the manufacturing biases of the initial model, and require new funding choices — just like it will for traditional publishers.
Open blogging networks may be impossible to commercialize, for a host of reasons.
The science blogosphere erupted in a furor this week, when Seed Media’s ScienceBlogs announced a new blog–Food Frontiers, a paid, sponsored blog about nutrition written by employees of PepsiCo. Multiple bloggers either suspended their blogs or quit ScienceBlogs altogether over their concerns that adding this blog undermined the credibility of the platform and their credibility as individual writers. Eventually, ScienceBlogs caved under the pressure and removed Pepsi’s blog. Did ScienceBlogs sell out to commercial interests, or was this just a continuation of what they’ve always done?
PLoS ONE’s relatively high impact factor may compromise its ability to support PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.
The Public Library of Science was once a radical force, but is now dependent on author-pays bulk-publishing for its livelihood, which introduces all sorts of problems for every journal publisher. What went wrong?
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.
Moving beyond citations, publisher paints broader picture of quality with palette of performance indicators.