Today, Roger Schonfeld argues that there are scholarly communication priorities that merit focus beyond price, value, and openness and which require cross-sector collaboration.
Continuing a series looking at start-ups in the scholarly sector, from what they do and how it could be useful, to how they have got started, and tips they would share with other entrepreneurs. This time, an interview with Andrew Preston and Ben Kaube, two of the founders of online seminar platform Cassyni
In a sector awash with training courses, what makes the FORCE11 Scholarly Communications Institute necessary, or different? The academic nature of its approach, the bang for your buck, and the high density of change-makers.
Is our objective for open access and scholarly communication to maximize public access to research outputs or to bend the cost curve for licensed e-resources? Definitions of success matter.
A recent UKSG conference explored what researchers need from scholarly communications, and whether the provisions of publishers, libraries and others are keeping up. Once again, the biggest frustration is rooted not in publisher / library services but in institutional structures for recognition.
Charlie Rapple celebrates the many conversations underway to re-imagine scholarly communications – and asks how we can better act on the ideas generated
The gender disparity at the top of scholarly publishing – and scholarly communications – is well documented. A recent article in Learned Publishing, discussed during an informal panel session at this year’s SSP conference, shows that not only are women under-represented at the top of our organizations, but also as speakers at our industry conferences. At seven major meetings in 2015, men represented on average over 60% of speakers and nearly two thirds of keynotes, and all male panels prevailed.
Academic libraries today invest in scholarly communication in a variety of ways, pursuing an array of objectives and taking on a variety of roles. The variety of objectives that academic libraries have for scholarly communications is to some degree a reflection of the different levels of engagement and prioritization that their parent universities have on these issues.
Applicants for a recent conference scholarship wrote essays that tended strongly to depict the traditional collection as dead and collaboration between librarians and publishers as essential to the library’s future. Do they herald a generational shift in mindset among librarians?
April sees the first Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship conference, described by the organizers as providing a “broad and collaborative forum for addressing and affecting scholarly and scientific communication. Find out more about this new meeting in our interview with two ARCS 2015 Board members, Robin Champieux and Jill Emery
Because so much of scholarly communication takes place via the internet, this week’s announcement by Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Tom Wheeler in support of Net Neutrality and regulation of the internet should be viewed as a positive thing for our community.
Alan Alda spoke at the AAAS meeting in Chicago on the theme of communicating science to the public. We often view the communication of science, be it in one’s own scholarly journals or in mass media, as somehow distinct and meaningfully different from other communication styles. However, Alda made the point repeatedly during his presentation that this should not be the case. One can accurately convey science with stories and an engaging style that not only brings the reader along in the discovery process, but also preserves the truth and validity of the underlying discovery. Alda made the point that “Communication is not something you add on to science, it is of the essence of science.” Publishers can help to improve how science is communicated; indeed it is at the core of what publishers bring to the process of distributing science.
A conversation with information scientist Carol Tenopir.
How did “scholarly communication” become equated with open access advocacy? Is its misuse ultimately self-defeating?
After one year, most COPE funds remain unspent. Is it time to revise the policy?