Another “mixed bag” post from us — Is it time to leave Twitter? How can we incentivize journals and authors to take up open science practices? What is “involution” and is DEIA the solution?
A new type of post from us today, offering a smorgasbord of opinions on topics including the ongoing Twitter/Elon Musk saga, just what “equitable access” to the literature means, the ongoing lack of experimental controls in one area of bibliometric analysis, and whether journals are more like a gate or a sewer.
Twitter does not increase citations, a reanalysis of author data shows. Did the authors p-hack their data?
When a reputable journal refuses to get involved with a questionable paper, science looks less like a self-correcting enterprise and more like a way to amass media attention.
We stand by our data. We just won’t share it or believe that you replicated our study.
Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.
A paper linking tweets and citations comes under attack, but more from the authors’ inability to answer even basic questions about their paper and resistance to share their data.
A brief review of studies linking social media and article-level performance.
A recent study of the spread of lies on Twitter is an important advance, but the authors missed a potentially huge factor, and one we can’t ignore.
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?
A new book explores how biases and broken systems get built into technology products and platforms.
The Altmetric “flower” is an icon, and the annual Top 100 list a much-anticipated event. But is the flower really a stalk?
A possible consequence of moves to more tightly regulate social media companies may be they start looking for new investments. And they already have some in scholarly publishing.
Last week’s surprisingly successful social media campaign was a winning event for libraries, archives, and museums.
Why did such a small price increase arouse such a big reaction from open access advocates?