Do higher impact journals do a better job with their statistics? A study with a sexy title proves to be poorly designed and poorly reported. Continue reading
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach. Continue reading
When your blog lets you know it’s impressed with your production level, you know you’ve done something that’s both impressive and regrettable. Continue reading
A new financial analysis of open access and two major publishers suggests that many of the trends we’re seeing aren’t about adversarial ideas and win:lose propositions, but about relatively small market adjustments and incremental changes. Continue reading
What an idea! Information consoles in the home of the future. They only missed the existence of wi-fi and cellular, and how those made everything portable. Continue reading
Rediscovering the master of suspense and a superb writer again brings immersive joy to this reader. Continue reading
A chemist complains about publishers exploiting authors through typesetting controls, but fails to understand exactly what it is and why it’s important. Continue reading
Nature (the journal) announces unwavering support for Gold OA on the same day Nature (the company) announces a major Gold OA partnership. But Nature (the journal) doesn’t itself adopt Gold OA. Why not? Continue reading
The continued silence from major funders involved in the eLife-PubMed Central scandal is creating a noise all its own. Continue reading
The OSTP memorandum is a reasonable step forward for everyone. However, a NYT editorial provides misleading interpretations of its scope and design. Continue reading