Send us a link
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.
Sure, it’s happened to all of us — the invitation to be keynote speaker at a conference you’ve never heard of or an invitation to sit on an editorial board for a journal with a name you don’t recognize.
How is a scientific article accepted for publication in an academic journal? What is the role of peer reviewers? Where does the system go astray?
Ireland's Health Research Board is the first public funder to launch their own publication platform.
This Perspective article argues that universities should take action to support open scholarship that benefits society and to return to their core missions of knowledge dissemination, community engagement, and public good.
In analyzing the marketplace of scholarly publishers and scientific workflow providers, a key strategic question is: Who owns Digital Science?
Repurposing continuous integration tools for scientific analyses takes the headache out of reproducible research.
Taxpayers sometimes have to pay three times for any scientific article.
SpringerNature, the publisher of science magazines Nature and Scientific American, is preparing a 2018 stock market listing valuing the company at up to 4 billion euros.
In theoretical computer science and machine learning, over 60% of published papers are on arXiv.
A "completely confusing statement" in a gazette notification has scientists wondering which of their papers will and won't be considered towards their promotions in the future.
Cost-neutral extension of the existing Springer contracts by one year.
One prominent research journal just updated its description to explain why it won’t be perfect—and that’s great.
Scholarly publishing giants Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have filed a lawsuit in Germany against ResearchGate, a popular academic networking site, alleging copyright infringement on a mass scale.
ResearchGate and Springer Nature have been in serious discussions for some time about finding solutions to sharing scientific journal articles online, while at the same time protecting intellectual property rights.
Academic publishers in general and Elsevier in particular have a reputation for their ruthless profiteering, using professional negotiators pitting hapless librarians against their own faculty.
Publishing means different things to different communities and individual approaches to OA are representative of this fact.
While few will disagree with their motives, the authors provide no roadmap for scientific societies. It may be time to learn from the successes of commercial rivals.
There is an urgent need by research communities and public agencies to collaboratively reclaim the infrastructure around the academic knowledge production process.
Once again, the term "open" requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant.
