The Research Information Network’s new report on researchers and Web 2.0 offers a similar set of results to previous studies: uptake is relatively low, and the trustworthiness and quality of online resources are suspect. The report offers contrary evidence to common myths about “digital natives” and some useful advice for anyone looking to build social media.
Scientist, editor, and OA advocate Jonathan A. Eisen rages against an infamous author-pays OA publisher.
Can the model used in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records be extended to embrace e-works? Or should it be trimmed instead?
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.
Economic turmoils continue to rock academia. University presses are feeling the pinch. How are European presses adapting?
Will e-book readers lead to a new form of expression? Should they even bother trying to mimic the paper and ink format they’re replacing?
The Bentham experiment suggests that a poorly managed payment system may be the root of a larger problem emerging in academic publishing.
The notion of a persistent, unique, portable author identifier sounds reasonable, but there may be a showstopper or two hidden in the mix.
The Research Assessment Exercise is slow and expensive. Abandoning peer-review for quantitative assessment may lead to excessive gaming and corrupt the indicators of quality.
Improving transparency and accountability in biomedical publishing has turned authorship into a legal system.
Can nearly 3,000 individuals really be authors on a single paper?