This tag is associated with 29 posts

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. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

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? 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

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. Continue reading

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. 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

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. Continue reading

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. 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

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. Continue reading

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. 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

Don’t Shoot the Messenger — Keeping Our Eye on the Real Meaning of the eLife-PubMed Central Scandal

Attacks — both overt and covert — from OA advocates and NIH/NLM phantoms come in the wake of the posts revealing how eLife and PubMed Central coordinated activities and kept secrets. 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

Why Were PubMed Central and eLife Discussing PeerJ?

When PubMed Central expedited eLife, PeerJ wondered why. Emails within PMC suggest they were tempted to help PeerJ in the same way. They even talked with eLife about how to handle 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

PubMed and F1000 Research — Unclear Standards Applied Unevenly

F1000 Research has confusing review and publication practices, and doesn’t call itself a journal, yet is now going to be indexed by PubMed — further eroding the PubMed brand. Continue reading

New Players, New Priorities — Part 3: It’s Never About the Money; It’s Always About the Money

Funders and governments are exerting their influence in scientific publishing through monetary and financial threats, and are willing to slow science in order to accomplish OA goals. 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.