Send us a link
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.
Between August 2014 and September 2016, the Academic Book of the Future Project, initiated by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Library, explored the current and future status of the traditional academic monograph.
Authors from western, individualist cultures are more likely to use many self-citations than authors from more collectivist cultures.
Liz Allen looks into what peer review actually tells us and how we use expert opinion.
Academic promotion panels must take into account a scholar’s presence in popular media.
Interviewing Dr David Savage.
FAIR doesn’t actually require the data or software to be openly available.
Last year, the new Microsoft Academic service was launched. Sven E. Hug and Martin P. Brändle look at how it compares with more established competitors such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science.
A significant weight is linked to ‘impact points’ – a similar metric to the widely discredited journal impact factor.
Bastian Greshake has analysed the full Sci-Hub corpus and found that articles are being downloaded from all over the world, more recently published papers are among the most requested, and there is a marked overrepresentation of requested articles from journals publishing on chemistry.
Good looking, sociable people don’t make good scientists, according to popular stereotypes.
The role and the impact of citizen science in today’s world.
Open data, code, materials and other reasons make blog posts score better on some core scientific values.
Post-publication peer review emerged in response to increased calls for continuous moderation of the published research literature.
PLOS now partners directly with protocols.io to provide authors better ways to share methodological details about their work, practical tools to reduce wasted research efforts and persistent, citable identifiers for laboratory methods.
Because sharing underlying data is essential for accelerating scientific advances and maximizing the value of research.
With so many scholarly communications tools and technologies now available, how do academics decide which are most appropriate for their research?
The scope of open science and the variety of actors involved make it not realistic, and even counterproductive, to expect there to be, now or in the future, one definition of open science that fits all.
Many bibliometricians and university administrators remain wary of Google Scholar citation data, preferring “the gold standard” of Web of Science instead.
Financing massive-scale copyright infringement.
Very informative and In-depth annual open access roundup.
Discussing the Future of Academic Publishing.
Having examined the organisation of Europe’s academic labour markets, Alexandre Afonso outlines the main differences between countries across the continent. There is greatest variance in two …
A list of some of the shady things Elsevier has been previously caught doing
