Bernard Rentier @bernardrentier@qoto.org

Le musée du Louvre publie le catalogue raisonné de sa collection des tableaux de Van Dyck dans quatre formats simultanés : un livre papier, un livre en ligne (format web), un livre numérique (format ePub) et un PDF téléchargeables gratuitement. En élaborant un livre dans des formats numériques adaptés au catalogue des peintures d’Antoon Van […]

The entire editorial board of the prestigious mathematics journal Topology has resigned to protest the pricing policies of the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, a giant European editorial company. “Topology has a very high price per page,” said Marc Lackenby, a member of the editorial board and a…

This needs to happen more.

Eight German researchers have announced their resignation from the editorial and advisory boards of a handful of Elsevier’s journals since 12 Octobe...

Following in the footsteps of linguistics journal Lingua, the editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics has resigned and launched a rival journal that will be free for all to read.

Entire board resigns over actions of academic publisher whose profit margins outstrip even Google and Amazon

“Guest Post - Why Interoperability Matters for Open Research – And More than Ever - The Scholarly Kitchen https://t.co/u3Cdsfunkf”

PLOS recently introduced Open Science Indicators (OSIs), a large public dataset identifying and quantifying Open Science practices like preprint posting, data sharing and code sharing in PLOS articles, as well as a selection of comparator articles published elsewhere. Now, we are delighted to release another six months of data from the second half of 2022, providing a new view of Open Science practices by researchers, over four years. The latest results continue to show incremental growth in all three areas.

Most experiments done by a researcher fail. It is the endless repetition and constant tweaking of the methods that leads to the occasional useful result. Failure of an experiment in itself is not informative; rather, it is the understanding of why something didn’t work that can be fruitful. Yet when it comes to innovative ideas in science communication, it is common to view failures as mathematical proof that a given idea can never succeed. The following is a look at postpublication discussion, preprints in biology, and crowdsourced protocol repositories—three brilliant ideas that initially flopped despite their greatness. Postpublication Review and Discussion Over a decade ago, BioMed Central (BMC) recognized the importance of postpublication discussion. Prepublication review can improve papers and catch errors, but only time and subsequent work of other scientists can truly show which results in a publication are robust and valid. Unlike a print journal (or print as a medium, in general), the Internet permits the readers to comment on published papers over time. So in 2002 BMC developed and enabled commenting on every one of its articles across its suite of journals. Not only does this allow for postpublication review, but it enables readers to easily ask authors and other readers a question, with public responses enriching the original manuscript, clarifying, and helping to improve the comprehension of the work. This is a terrific idea, but it didn’t really catch on. When analyzed in 2008 by Euan Adie, after five years of commenting, only 2% of the […]

Review of a new book with 6 months of assessing GPT-4 for medical applications

This Viewpoint examines the increase in “mega-journals” (prolific publishers of medical articles) and both the opportunities and threats to scientific research they present.

“After Volvo engineer Nils Bohlin invented the three-point seatbelt, the company opened up the patent because "it had more value as a free life-saving tool than something to profit from." Learn more: https://t.co/PLag64TrHB”

Edtech giant prepares to offer customers new tool from April as it grapples with challenges posed by ChatGPT

There are those who demand journal peer-review be paid extra on top of academic salaries. Let’s have a look at the financials of that proposal. The article linked above confirms common rates of academic consulting fees, i.e., anything between US$100 […] <a class="more-link" href="http://bjoern.brembs.net/2023/02/how-about-paying-extra-for-peer-review/">↓ Read the rest of this entry...</a>

This call for proposals supports innovative research that requires the development and application of advanced research software.