The Journal of Open Source Software
A free, open-access journal designed to publish brief papers about research software.
Send us a link
A free, open-access journal designed to publish brief papers about research software.
Emory College of Arts and Sciences has launched a $1.2 million effort that positions it to be a national leader in the future of scholarly publishing. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is funding the multiyear initiative to support long-form, open-access publications in the humanities in partnership with university presses.
Several services attempt to gather up “all” of the content across publishers. This post provides an overview and taxonomy.
Proposing a new kind of paper that combines the flexibility of basic research with the rigour of clinical trials.
How to prevent, diagnose, and treat the five diseases of academic publishing.
Funders, scientists, and journal editors will continue to play vital roles in defining a communication system that embraces both modern technology and the human need for curation.
Universities across the country are struggling with rising journal prices
The provisional agreement may set a precedent for other funders and journal publishers.
Elsevier have been caught selling access to paid-for “open articles in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
Textbooks aren't selling like they used to, but a new business model that has led to increased access to course materials and lower costs at some universities is beginning to take shape.
Ambra is an innovative Open Source platform for publishing Open Access research articles. It provides features for post-publication discussion and versioned articles that allows for a “living” document around which further scientific discoveries can be made. The platform is in active development by PLOS (Public Library of Science) and is licensed under the MIT License.
To advance scientific communication and open access publishing. The partnership will also ensure open access to research funded by the Gates Foundation and published in the Science family of journals.
Publisher restores access as negotiations for a nationwide licence continue.
£182'100 of fixed costs per year.
How should the scientific publication process be rethought to be more meritocratic?
If we were to have to invent the scholarly publishing system again from scratch today, what would it look like?
While we need to alert researchers to the presence of predatory journals, we should mostly put our efforts into transforming the academic research environment and reward systems, raising standards and developing true collegiality both within and between institutions.
There are more academic publishers out there than ever before. In 2014 there was an estimated 28,100 active scientific journals, but while the large majority of these journals are highly respected, there has also been a sharp rise in the number of predatory journals.
For publishers, this moment of political upheaval has the potential to allow them to reboot their fraught relationships with libraries, universities, and scientists.
A leading website that monitored predatory open access journals has closed. This will make it harder to keep tabs on this corrosive force within science.
Poor monitoring in ‘second-tier’ institutions is also part of the problem, research indicates
Glasstree allows academics and their supporting institutions to actually profit from sales of their work.
An author and reviewer in conversation – the road to FAIRness in scientific publishing
Elsevier has announced the acquisition of Plum Analytics from EBSCO Information Services
A new open-access journal that focuses on the importance of public engagement to research has been published.
How to divest from a longstanding print legacy and truly embrace new digital technologies for the dissemination of research output.
Academia.edu, ResearchGate and private publishers all have something in common.
When a new grad student indicates an interest in an academic career, I ask, “So you want to be a Hollywood producer?”
Do journals do a good job of finding appropriate peers to review papers? Are editors always in the best place to decide the fate of a paper based on a severely limited sampling of peer reports?