“Researchers have only so many hours in a day; if they can spend one less hour on a research article because we have implemented improved workflows and better technology, that’s one more hour they can spend on research to try to save my life, and the lives of all ALS patients.” In today’s post, Bruce Rosenblum shares his experience as a clinical trial participant and how that contributed to scholarly publications.
Paul Killoran, CEO of Ex Ordo reflects on the future of scholarly events and makes a case for innovation.
Craig Griffin looks at potential applications we might see for tools like ChatGPT in scholarly publishing. Also included — a research results haiku.
Why doesn’t a ball fly off of a spinning turntable?
eLife’s recent announcement that it will reinvent itself as a “service that reviews preprints” has generated much discussion over recent weeks. But what are the primary drivers and goals, and what might we all learn from this bold experiment?
Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-residence at the BYU libraries discusses the intersection of scholarly journals and Wikipedia.
Twitter does not increase citations, a reanalysis of author data shows. Did the authors p-hack their data?
Robert Harington reports on the recent SSP Publisher-Funder Task Force closed forum of funders, publishers, librarians and academics, who met to discuss how collaboration among stakeholder groups may accelerate a transition to open research.
In this first of two posts, Robert Harington talks with several forward-thinking Society Executive Directors/CEOs, representing a range of fields, on the future of scholarly society operations and strategy.
The restoration of a glorious portrait raises questions about the scholarly Version of Record.
User-centered design provides a model for improving services, but is the history of print holding publishers back?
John Sherer describes a new research project which will look at the impact of open access on print monograph sales, particularly in light of the free access provided early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is value in exploring the concept of different perspectives on open access in order to begin to develop a “unified approach to open”.
This is where innovation happens, not among the gods on Mount Olympus but in small, tangible ways where people go about their lives and try to improve them a little bit at a time. We all work together, unknowingly, making things better, faster, cheaper.
Why aren’t libraries providing support for your open access or open science initiative? Be careful what you assume.