- Seniors, Women Embracing Tablets, E-Readers
- Open access to scientific knowledge and feudalism knowledge: Is there a connection?
- I Got the Wrong Request from the Wrong Journal to Review the Wrong Piece. The Wrong kind of Open Access Apparently, Something Wrong with this Inherently...
- Do More, Own Less: A Grand Theory of the Sharing Economy
- Now Can We All Agree That The "High Quality Web Content" Experiment Has Failed?
- A way forward on reformatting conferences
- Five Hard Truths About Blogging
- Social Media - Oversold and Undervalued
- Collections are library assets
- The Internet of things will dwarf the Internet of people
- The HP TouchPad Debacle, Success Opens Eyes for iPad Rivals
- 10 Must-Read Books for Geeks - Part I & Part II
- It's writers v. professors in the latest war of words
- Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement
- What's Wrong With Research Communication
More like this
Youll have to forgive me, folks. Im in the midst of writing a paper (*insert excited Peter Griffin gasp here*-- there are lots of open access virology journals, but I cant promise it).
Writing this paper has reminded me of a luxury we have in scientific research: we can be wrong.
Let me say these things, because they are important. Bora was wrong. Scientific American was wrong. Ofek was wrong, Wrong, WRONG.
Merry Sunday! Here are some links. Science:
This is why I blog: gratitude from stellar student, recovering addict seeking grad school advice
I don't care that the director or CEO of an advocacy organization concerned with poverty is an active academic. Indeed, my view of active academics is that many are largely incompetent in areas of life other than their specialized field. If that.