A Confusion of Journals — What Is PubMed Now?
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
Who Has All the Content?
Several services attempt to gather up “all” of the content across publishers. This post provides an overview and taxonomy.
Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)
Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do.
Discovery and Access in Light of the Ebola Outbreak
Several researchers recently “stumbled across” an article indicating the reasonable likelihood that Liberia would be faced with cases of Ebola. Public health officials had not acted on this known likelihood. The question is why.
UPDATED — 82 Things Publishers Do (2014 Edition)
The annual update to the list adds some important items overlooked on prior versions, including design, enforcement of editorial policies, and Board interactions.
Layers Upon Layers — Taking Advantage of the Great Infrastructure Build-Out of the Twenty Aughts
The infrastructure layers that are emerging specifically for scholarly publishers, authors, and readers are yielding new services and even more layers. What’s next? And what’s missing?
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.
Getting Open Access Embargoes Right: Rational Policy Must Be Evidence-Based
A new study, out today, takes a broad look at the usage lives of scholarly journal articles. The information it contains is vital for achieving the balance necessary for Green OA policies to work.
Link Miser — Why the NLM Links to PubMed Central Versions Directly from PubMed Search Results
Why does PubMed preferentially link to PMC versions in its search result lists? Emails from 2011 suggest it’s specifically to generate more traffic to PMC and show off NLM services.
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.
Don't Miss Another Hour with the Chefs, and Other Highlights — The SSP Annual Meeting in San Francisco
The Chefs are headed to San Francisco for another lively session closing out the SSP Annual Meeting. A range of topics and opinions will serve as dessert for a terrific meeting.
Seeking Acceptance at F1000 Research — Early Problems With Identity and Outsourced Authority
Articles are published before they’re reviewed; doubts about a paper are viewed as a positive status; papers only need to contain “science;” review and revision can continue forever; and PubMed Central is their certifying entity. Welcome to the world of F1000 Research.
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.
How Rigorous Is the Post-publication Review Process at F1000 Research?
Comparing the length of post-publication peer reviews in F1000 Research to those done pre-publication in four major medical journals shows authors are less likely to receive constructive or substantial criticism with F1000 Research reviews, despite a highly academic reviewer pool.
The eLife Story Continues — Evasions Seem the Best We Can Expect
The continued silence from major funders involved in the eLife-PubMed Central scandal is creating a noise all its own.