Send us a link
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.
A pilot project representing the first significant experiment with the syndication of publisher content to a content supercontinent.
NISO and NFAIS announced a planned merger yesterday, designed to better serve their members during a time of rapid change.
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?
Elsevier's Gaby Appleton expands on some of the themes she discussed during the recent STM Association's panel debate on 'The future of access" and the work Elsevier is doing in these areas.
Open Acess and Plan S in particular create a conflict between editorial quality and the cost of publication.
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.
Over 1,200 researchers signed an open letter expressing concern about Plan S. Then Twitter came for them -- and, more particularly, for the woman who organized the letter.
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.
Plan S proposes to take a hammer to how we fund peer review and publication. Submission fees deserve serious consideration.
Essay on how traditional publishing works: its market mechanism and editorial strategy.
We continue our Peer Review Week celebrations with a roundup of articles about bias, diversity, and inclusion in peer review, by Alice Meadows, including eight lessons we can all learn from them.
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.
For social science and humanities researchers in many parts of the world there are significant barriers to conducting and sharing research, in some cases more so than for science and medicine. In this guest post, Dr. Naveen Minai provides a perspective as a gender studies researcher in Pakistan.
Thanks to a major new international research study, it's no longer possible to pretend that predatory journals are not a serious problem that needs serious attention.
Academic publishing is dominated by a small number of commercial firms. How can the academy take control of scholarly publishing?
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.
Rob Johnson looks at the growth of hybrid open access, and questions whether it will remain a reliable revenue stream for publishers.
Dr. Geraldine Cochran discusses why addressing equity is the first step in creating a diverse and inclusive organization.
Google's journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
Shorter deadlines, email reminders, and cash incentives can speed up the peer review process and minimize unintended effects, a recent study suggests. Can it work for other disciplines?
