Social license, in the context of research, is a form of public ‘approval’ that ensures research is funded, that its results are respected, and that participation is willingly engaged in, where needed. For many reasons, it seems as if researchers’ current social license is in danger of being revoked. Charlie Rapple explores what might be required to ensure it is renewed.
In 2011, Marc Andreessen said that software is eating the world. Since then, publishers have embraced technology. Specifically, the internet – an infrastructure and platform set dominated by open source software. As some academics start to see open source as necessary part of modern, open scholarship. do publisher need to seriously consider changing how we innovate?
SSP and the Charleston Library Conference have partnered to offer a scholarship program to attend each organization’s annual meetings. Here, the winning essay from Lynnee Argabright offers thoughts on how the needs of emerging professionals/academics change scholarly communications in the future.
Amy Brand from MIT Press and the Crossref Board of Directors offers her thought on this crucial moment in the evolution of Crossref and the scholarly communications infrastructure.
In this guest post, Rob Johnson and Andrea Chiarelli of Research Consulting discuss the findings of their recent research study into the recent growth of preprint servers and explore how publishers might respond.
New today: In a crowded and confusing landscape for research data preservation and sharing, two fundamentally competing visions are emerging. Which will win?
Part 2 — how will the rapidly evolving world of researcher software impact scholarly communications?
Part 1 of a two-part look at the rapidly evolving research software space and how it is changing scholarly communication.
Robert Harington suggests that despite the critical role of scholarly societies in publishing and academia, the sad reality is it is the big corporate publishers who win.
Sharing research data is increasingly becoming a real business. Today, we provide an overview this landscape and highlight several recent announcements that may indicate future strategic prospects.
Continuing our celebration of Peer Review Week 2019, today Alice Meadows interviews Tracey Brown, OBE, Director of Sense about Science, which has been involved in Peer Review Week from the start.
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.
The systems of research and scholarly communication contain a lot of redundancy. This is a good thing.
Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives and a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles.
Bringing the authority of the academy to a broad audience should be second only to original research itself, especially if the research community hopes to retain or even increase the public’s support for the esoteric work that goes on behind the laboratory walls.