Two years after its initial entry into the marketplace, Cabell's Blacklist has matured into a carefully crafted and highly useful directory of predatory and deceptive journals.

There’s a new publishing trend in town, says Mario Biagioli: Faking co-authors’ names. Biagioli, distinguished professor of law and science and technology studies and director of the Center for Innovation Studies at the University of California, Davis, writes that it’s “the emergence of a new form of plagiarism that reflects the new metrics-based economy of scholarly publishing.” We asked him a few questions about what he’s found, and why authors might do this.

Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution 'Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.'

On Friday, Ithaka S+R released the latest cycle of our long-standing US Faculty Survey which has tracked the changing research, teaching, and publishing practices of higher education faculty members on a triennial basis since 2000.  Here, some of the key findings around open access are higlighted. Especially among early career researchers, real-world incentives remain misaligned — and indeed appear to be moving further out of alignment — with the drive towards open access.

Is it every day or just every week that we see an announcement of a new “transformative agreement” between a publisher and a library or library consortium? Or, if not a press release announcing such an agreement, a statement that such is the goal of a newly opened — or perhaps faltering — set of negotiations? What makes an agreement transformative anyway?

The academic publication lifecycle has undergone radical changes over the past several years. These changes have a significant impact on how scholarship will be written, published, promoted, and read in the future.

Libraries provide vital digital services to their host institutions. If these services carry clear library identity branding, it strengthens the library's position in the university and enables it to secure the budget and political capital necessary to do its work.

Robert Harington interviews Daniel Hook, CEO of Digital Science, discussing openness and findings from his recent report entitled The Ascent of Open Access.

With thousand of pages of feedback on the Plans S implementation guidance, what themes emerged that might guide next steps?

Data Availability Statements are a powerful tool in promoting data sharing, but what does it take to include them in a journal workflow?

The author argues that the two biggest forces driving change in the scholarly communication landscape are consolidation and regulation. By consolidation, he means that there’s a now constant cycle of mergers and acquisitions, reducing the number of independent players in the market. By regulation, we’re talking about the increasing number of rules and the compliance burden being put on researchers.

If we believe data should be valued like other research outputs, we must take action to achieve this. Supporting the open data movement means providing proper support for data citations.

Plan S implementation guidance has not provided reassurance to anxious society publishers.

We know that peer review is important and that the hard work of reviewers should be recognized. Yet we still don't really know how that recognition should work.

Journal Editors commonly fear that data policies will hurt submissions, but data from 12 evolution and ecology journals say otherwise.

Essay on how traditional publishing works: its market mechanism and editorial strategy.

A fresh mapping of open-science tools for the researcher workflow reveals numerous gaps and opportunities for software solutions in the name of scientific progress.

A heuristic (exploratory) comparison of several new, free / mainstream academic search tools, concluding that their effectivness improves if an institution's library licenses them for off-campus authentication.