Publishing

Mike the Mad Biologist

Category archives for Publishing

Nature’s Bubble Business Model

By now, you might have heard about the kerfuffle between Nature publishing and the University of California (also here, here, here, and here). Basically, the University of California has accused Nature of raising its prices for institutional journal subscriptions by 400%; the university system, which has significant purchasing power, has threatened a boycott that would…

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been catching up on my science reading, and that’s reminded me just how much I hate it when journal articles refer to supplemental materials. I’m not bothered when tables that used to go in what we old-timers once called appendices wind up in supplemental materials: very few people…

There’s been some recent discussion about what eBooks will mean for publishing (ScienceBlogling Chad Orzel has a good roundup). As it often is, my take on this is ‘follow the money.’

One of the things I can’t stand about non-open access publishers is that federally-funded scientific results (federally subsidized in multiple ways) are locked behind a publisher’s for-profit firewall. Given the high prices of journals and universities’ need to cut expenditures, library budgets are getting slashed. So what’s a scientist to do? Have a colleague whose…

Regular readers will know that I’m not an intertubez triumphalist. But I read that the Harvard Book Store has bought itself a fancy gizmo to print any book in about four minutes:

The staff of PLoS Medicine does not like ghostwritten articles: If you are an editor, author, reviewer, or reader of medical journals, or if you depend on your doctor or health care provider getting unbiased information from medical journals, then the 1,500 documents now hosted on the PLoS Medicine Web site

Recently, Newsweek published an article by Sharon Begley that claimed that the conflict between high-profile publication and quick release of medically-important data has led to delays in medical advancements (ScienceBlogling Orac takes down her particular example). But Begley is confusing a symptom, publication practices, with a much larger problem: incentives. What do I mean by…

And do we want to? Maybe it could help formally include non-publishing activities in a scientist’s evaluation? When I first read this PLoS Computational Biology article, “I Am Not a Scientist, I Am a Number“, I was ready to beat down on its ass. After all, how seriously can you take something like this which…

Reed Elsevier Publishing in Trouble

This couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of assholes:

The Problem with Publication-Driven Science

Now, I realize with this title, lots of people are thinking that I’m trying to do away with scientific articles. Far from it. But the use of published articles as ‘scientific currency’ can retard the adoption of new breakthroughs. A recent personal experience is in order.