Laura Martin offers a summary of a recent C4DISC panel discussion on Intersectionality and what we can do to better support ourselves and our colleagues.
Turns out, digital transformation is actually more human than technical. Learn more in these case studies from Emerald and De Gruyter.
On July 4, 1971 Michael Hart posted the first ebook file on the ARPANET and transformed content distribution.
The Co-Chairs of this year’s Peer Review Week Steering Group reveal the theme of Peer Review Week 2021.
Calls for a monoculture of scholarly communication keep multiplying. But wouldn’t a continued diversity of models be healthier?
Every five years Research4Life commissions in-depth reviews of its work to understand how the work of the partnership is experienced from the users’ as well as the partners’ perspectives. Domiziana Francescon discusses the latest findings.
Revisiting Jasmine Wallace’s 2019 primer on best practices for peer reviewers.
We’re off for the long weekend. Some musical reading suggestions for your summer are offered.
Why did a certain band eliminate brown M&M’s from their dressing room? And what does that have to do with the formatting requirements at some journals? Nathan Stevenson explains.
This eighth episode of SSP’s Early Career Development Podcast is the second in a two-part series on open access publishing. In this episode, Meredith Adinolfi (Cell Press) and Ann Michael (DeltaThink) discuss some of the more complex aspects of the OA landscape, such as funder mandates, Plan S, and transformative agreements.
The nuances between spelling mistakes, autocorrects, fat finger errors, atomic typos, muscle memory flaws, and the reason we only spot them AFTER pressing send.
Liz Bal from Jisc discusses the scholarly publishing lessons learned from COVID-19, and how they can be applied to make research communication more efficient and effective.
In the second of two posts on persistent identifiers in scholarly communications, Phill Jones and Alice Meadows share information about a new cost-benefit analysis showing the value of widespread PID adoption
Today’s post is the first of two in which we look at the state of persistent identifiers and what they mean for publishers—to coincide with the first meeting, on June 21, of the new UK Research Identifier National Coordinating Council (RINCC) and publication the same day of a Cost Benefit Analysis Report, funded by the UK Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) for Open Access project.
How much jargon is too much jargon?