Scholarly Communications Shouldn't Just Be Open, but Non-Profit Too
The profit motive is fundamentally misaligned with core values of academic life, potentially corroding ideals like unfettered inquiry, knowledge-sharing, and cooperative progress.
opinion articles
Send us a link
The profit motive is fundamentally misaligned with core values of academic life, potentially corroding ideals like unfettered inquiry, knowledge-sharing, and cooperative progress.
Don't be taken in by the memo’s faux-reasonable tone.
Greater collaboration leading to the growing informal use and exchange of free material between researchers.
For years university researchers have complained that the publishing giant has driven up the costs of journals. Now, as data-sharing becomes more valuable, the company’s shifting focus is raising new concerns.
As a new French report highlights, early-career researchers face significant challenges landing permanent academic positions—but there may also be some rays of hope.
Oliver Rosten believes the postdoctoral system played a role in his friend’s suicide. Disseminating that opinion in a scientific journal took perseverance.
Kamila Markram, head of open science platform Frontiers, argues research funders must do much more to speed openness in science.
To conserve Earth's remarkable species, we must also defend the importance of science and scientific integrity.
It’s time for a global movement that pushes academic research beyond journal paywalls so it makes a difference in the world.
Giving researchers the data skills they need to share, review, and validate each other’s work, writes Erin Becker.
Science should abandon its assembly-line mentality and rebuild for quality, not quantity, argues Michele Pagano.
Publishing platforms from The Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the European Commission alter Open Access.
It turns out that defining "raw" is a little trickier than it might seem.
The European Commission has offered funding for an internet for research data. But it’s unclear what it expects to get for its money.
Science is endangered by statistical misunderstanding, and by university presidents and research funders who impose perverse incentives on scientists.
Climate change is the perfect example of how a cut-and-dry scientific issue can become controversial if it is represented consistently in partisan terms. Let’s not drag funding into the fray as well.
The bibliometric system and the rules which accompany it have created an environment in which many if not most researchers can be identified as transgressors.
Our work helps answer some of society's greatest challenges, but it's usually conveyed with technical language in journals most citizens never see.
The market is dominated by just a few publishers who exercise their power ruthlessly.
Just a hunch? Hardly. Think germ theory, atomic theory and the theory of evolution.
Many decisions about whose work is recognized are at least partially arbitrary, and we should acknowledge that.
Public rejection might just be part of the journey to knowledge's acceptance.