Send us a link
The traditional journal publishing system, the recent open access models of journal publishing as an evolving phenomenon, the nature and extent of open access as a disruptive innovation, and the implications for key stakeholders.
Springer Nature is considering a potential 4-5 billion euro stock market listing next year.
By day, "Olivia Doll" sits on the boards of seven academic journals; by night, she's a Staffordshire terrier named Ollie, owned by Mike Daube, a public health expert in Perth, Australia.
After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS.
As researchers, we are unlikely to spend much time reflecting on one of the often-forgotten pillars of science: scientific publishing. Naturally, our focus leans more towards traditional academic activities including teaching, mentoring graduate students and post docs, and the next exciting experiment that will allow us to advance our understanding.
Because knowing where to look is half the battle.
Golden OA creates a conflict of interest: in a situation where the number of scientists is larger than the number of available positions, both journals and scientists benefit from publishing as many articles as possible.
'Free science'/pirate site operator 'working on solving DNS issue'
For all the wonderful things academic societies do, they tend to be incredibly conservative and have done very little to suggest that they can lead on publishing innovation.
Michael Markie, Publisher at F1000, and Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research, Wellcome, highlight Wellcome Open Research’s achievements in its first year of publishing.
Trevor Mundel, President of Global Health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is eager to see Gates Open Research match the performance of Wellcome Open Research.
Does press coverage ever lead to papers’ rejection?
The interests of the legacy publishers cannot co-exist with the ideals of the Open Access movement.
Google and Comcast won't be asked to take action anytime soon.
Single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.
How do evolving forms of digital scholarship fit into the current landscape and what are the implications for publishers?
Science could benefit from more reporting of null findings, even if the reports were briefer and had less detail than would be needed for peer review.
This week, we received a press release that caught our attention: A company is releasing software it claims will write manuscripts using researchers’ data.
Leading Swedish research funder joins nonprofit coalition committing about £2.72 mio. to eLife for a 4-year period beginning in 2018.
ECNP’s Preclinical Data Forum has announced the world’s first prize of 10,000 EUR for publishing ‘negative’ scientific results.
Digital Science continued independence is the best way to have the biggest impact in supporting research, researchers, publishers, funders and research institutions around the world.
How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? A white paper by Springer Nature.
While part of the original motivation of the first research publication in serial form — the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 — was to make money, the early history of scholarly publishing is largely one of community subsidy to cover losses or breaking even.
The American Chemical Society was granted an unprecedented injunction which requires search engines and ISPs to block Sci-Hub.
The Financial Times disclosed that Springer Nature has blocked access in China to at least 1,000 articles from the websites of two of its journals in response to Beijing’s censorship demands.
Data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal.
Paul Shannon, Head of Technology, looks at the costs of running eLife’s own continuous publication platform four months after the launch of eLife 2.0.
High price of journals 'placing strain on acceptance' of division of labour between researchers and publishers, says professor.
Elizabeth Gadd takes a look at the contradictions between scholarly culture and copyright culture, and the cognitive dissonance created.
Approximately half of the editors of 52 prestigious U.S. medical journals received payments from the pharmaceutical and medical device industry in 2014.
