Generative AI wants to make information cheap, but will people want to read it? Are we ready for more productive writers?
Today’s guest post, by Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse, highlights some of the challenges – and opportunities – of evaluating the quality of research rather than its impact.
Proposing a model for thinking about the interactions of rigor, cogency, accessibility, significance, openness, and impact in scholarly quality.
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.
Most journals have adopted rapid publication processes, but with the rise of preprint servers and new trends among readers, maybe they can return to a slower, more considered pace.
Are the APC levels set for high-end OA journals too low to be sustainable? Are there other ways that might help high-end OA journals pay their way?
Emory Professor and journal Editor in Chief Gary Miller offers a long term view of the scholarly literature and offers thoughts on the important values worth preserving in the shift from print to digital.
Libraries do not have the luxury (or the mission) of selecting books solely based on their intrinsic quality. In order to do their work, the students and scholars served by the library need access to books that are highly relevant to their interests. How do the variables of quality and relevance interact with each other when it comes to library book purchasing?
The digital world increases the need to distinguish good information from bad, and despite multiple approaches, we still have a patchwork approach — but more attention is being paid.
Open access publishing is a viable option, with gold OA gaining traction. But concerns remain, and funding is uncertain.
The price of typos exists, but the price of not seeing solutions that are right in front of you could be higher.