Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution “Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.”
In this update, the focus shifts to the value journal publishers offer, and who benefits.
Getting researcher buy-in to new tools and systems can be challenging – even when those tools are intended to help free them of administrative burden. A community approach, such as the publisher-led initiative to require ORCID iDs for authors, can be very effective.
A session at ALPSP shines a light on why publishers are caught in an impossible situation — satisfying customers who demand different things at different times, and who are not aligned around the ultimate benefit they all seek to deliver.
Why is it so frustrating and difficult to talk about scholarly-communication reform, and why do those conversations seem to involve virtually all members of the scholcomm ecosystem except for authors?
Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do.
Charlie Rapple reports on “Think. Check. Submit.”, a campaign to help researchers learn who they can trust when they are seeking to publish their work.
A recent study finds that academic press offices exaggerate claims in their press releases about published research. Worse, the vast majority of these find their way into subsequent reporting.
The annual update to the list adds some important items overlooked on prior versions, including design, enforcement of editorial policies, and Board interactions.
A new way to view journal content in PubMed Central casts journal branding aside for a uniform PMC approach.
In this “Stick to Your Ribs,” we revisit a post by Joe Esposito about how not-for-profit governance may be a root cause of middling results and blunted strategies.
Open blogging networks may be impossible to commercialize, for a host of reasons.
Blogging platforms have morphed into web site and social media platforms. But now they’re moving into areas even farther afield, like books.
Scientists seem uninterested in participating in social media offerings, as the rewards offered are generally of insufficient value to warrant the effort required. Instead of just hoping that scientists will suddenly see the value in your product, why not offer incentives for participation?
Clever, clever, and oh so worth watching through to the end: