- Science Journals Have Passed Their Expiration Date -- It's Time for the Publishing Platform
- An interview with Anurag Acharya, Google Scholar lead engineer (2006)
- Google Scholar pioneer on search engine’s future
- Google Scholar Is Doing Just Fine, Says Google
- What if Google killed Scholar?
- Making the world’s problem solvers 10% more efficient: Ten years after a Google engineer empowered researchers with Scholar, he can’t bear to leave it
- A Decade of Google Scholar
- On the Shoulders of Giants: The Growing Impact of Older Articles
- Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-Elite Journals
- The Rights Stuff: Copyright, Scientific Debate, and Reuse
- Data Capture for the Real World
- Additive, Substitutive, Subtractive
- The Open Science Peer Review Oath
- Book Review: Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future by Martin Eve
- The academic ‘further achievers’ who live to work
- Corporate interest is a problem for research into open-access publishing
- The Size of the Open Access Market
- Negotiations between Elsevier and Dutch Universities break down: Time for change
- Publishers address concerns on ‘total cost of ownership’ of e-resources
- Log in to post comments
On Science Journals...Yes the internet has made the distribution of research results MUCH easier and quicker and science journals charge way too much for this service. But anybody who has used Google is increasingly aware of the importance of a some degree of gate-keeping. The peer review system has many problems but it is SOMETHING. And the difficulty of the "author pays" model (even for those of us who believe that IS where we're headed) is that it removes what little incentive there is for the publisher to act as a gatekeeper. Because the distribution of citations for papers approaches the hyperbolic, the metrics and reputations of journals are mostly set by their ability to capture a few superstar papers, not how well they screen out the poorly thought out or executed research.