In a crowded and confusing landscape for research data preservation and sharing, two fundamentally competing visions are emerging. Which will win?

Sharing research data is increasingly becoming a real business. Today, we provide an overview this landscape and highlight several recent announcements that may indicate future strategic prospects. 

Given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?

An interview with Jason Lorgan, executive director of campus stores at @UCDavis, about the university's innovative new textbook-affordability program.

Could scholarly publishers' skills and capacity be re-positioned to serve researchers at earlier stages in the research process, 'upstream' of publication? A survey of the communications needs of almost 10,000 researchers.

In this guest post, Gisela Fosado and Cathy Rimer-Surles of Duke UP share highlights and a video from their panel session on equity at the 2019 AUPresses Annual Meeting, plus helpful recommendations to help us achieve equity in scholarly communications.

Proposing a model for thinking about the interactions of rigor, cogency, accessibility, significance, openness, and impact in scholarly quality.

Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? 

A path forward for open access in the humanities and social sciences.

Two years after its initial entry into the marketplace, Cabell's Blacklist has matured into a carefully crafted and highly useful directory of predatory and deceptive journals.

There’s a new publishing trend in town, says Mario Biagioli: Faking co-authors’ names. Biagioli, distinguished professor of law and science and technology studies and director of the Center for Innovation Studies at the University of California, Davis, writes that it’s “the emergence of a new form of plagiarism that reflects the new metrics-based economy of scholarly publishing.” We asked him a few questions about what he’s found, and why authors might do this.

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.

With thousand of pages of feedback on the Plans S implementation guidance, what themes emerged that might guide next steps?