Reuters: Google to pay some publishers for content; others dubious. “Alphabet’s Google on Thursday took a step towards resolving its spat with publishers, saying it would pay some media groups in Australia, Brazil and Germany for high-quality content and expects to do more deals, but others were sceptical.” Shocked. Really.
Nature: Hundreds of journals’ editorial practices captured in database. “Funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, and created with the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies, the platform currently hosts a database of 387 journals. It evaluates these journals’ peer-review procedures according to 12 criteria, including: the level of anonymity afforded to authors and reviewers; the use of digital tools such as plagiarism scanners; and the timing of peer review in the research and publication process (see S. P. J. M. Horbach and W. Halffman Scientometrics 118, 339–373; 2019). The platform displays the procedures used by each journal, along with aggregate statistics on the various editorial practices.”
Publishers Weekly: Covid-19 Updates: Special Offers, Events and Discounts. “Publishers Weekly is maintaining a listing of special offers, events, and discounts provided in an effort to mitigate the impact of the new coronavirus on the book publishing industry and on related communities.”
Publishers Weekly: Is Macmillan Reconsidering Its Library E-book Embargo?. “At the recent ALA Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia, Macmillan CEO John Sargent told librarians that he would come back in March with potential alternatives to the publisher’s controversial library e-book embargo. And this week, Macmillan made good on Sargent’s statement, with an email to a select group of librarians seeking feedback on three proposals that could inform new e-book license terms for public libraries.”
Ars Technica: Meta-analysis study indicates we publish more positive results. “While science as a whole has produced remarkably reliable answers to a lot of questions, it does so despite the fact that any individual study may not be reliable. Issues like small errors on the part of researchers, unidentified problems with materials or equipment, or the tendency to publish positive answers can alter the results of a single paper. But collectively, through multiple studies, science as a whole inches towards an understanding of the underlying reality.”
Phys .org: To help protect research, experts agree on a definition of predatory publishing. “Leading scholars and publishers from The Ottawa Hospital’s Centre for Journalology, the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Management, and other institutions from around the world have agreed on a consensus definition of predatory publishing. Led by Drs. Agnes Grudniewicz, David Moher, Kelly Cobey, and Manoj Lalu, their commentary was published in Nature.”
TechCrunch: Why the Facebook News tab shouldn’t be trusted. “I used to think of Facebook as being in a bizarre love quadrangle with its users, developers and advertisers. But increasingly it feels like the company is in an abusive love/hate relationship with users, catering to their attention while exploiting their privacy. Meanwhile, it dominates the advertisers thanks to its duopoly with Google that lets it survive metrics errors, and the developers as it alters their access and reach depending on if it needs their users or is backpedaling after a data fiasco.”
UNC Libraries: Library to Debut Open Access Pilot with SAGE Publishing. “The University Libraries and SAGE Publishing will enter into a pilot agreement enabling researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to publish open access articles in SAGE journals at no cost to the researcher. Under the agreement, part of the subscription fees that the Library will pay for SAGE content beginning in 2020 will cover the costs of open access publishing for a number of UNC-Chapel Hill authors in SAGE publications. This comes at no additional cost to the Library and will preserve access to all content that the Library currently licenses from SAGE.”
Science: In departure for NIH, Cancer Moonshot requires grantees to make papers immediately free. “The long-standing debate over open access to research results has been marked by a geographic divide. In Europe, some public funders have launched a high-profile open-access initiative, dubbed Plan S, that would ultimately require grantees to publish only in journals that immediately make papers free to all. But in the United States, federal agencies have stuck to a decade-old policy that allows grantees to publish in journals that keep papers behind a paywall for up to 1 year. Now, the divide is starting to blur, with one prominent U.S. research program starting to require immediate open access to the peer-reviewed publications it funds.”
MIT News: The MIT Press releases a comprehensive report on open-source publishing software. “The MIT Press has announced the release of a comprehensive report on the current state of all available open-source software for publishing. ‘Mind the Gap,’ funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, ‘shed[s] light on the development and deployment of open source publishing technologies in order to aid institutions’ and individuals’ decision-making and project planning,’ according to its introduction. It will be an unparalleled resource for the scholarly publishing community and complements the recently released Mapping the Scholarly Communication Landscape census.”
NiemanLab: As of December, publishers will no longer be allowed to send out newsletters on WhatsApp. “In an effort to crack down on ‘automated or bulk messaging, or non-personal use’ on the platform, WhatsApp will no longer allow publishers to send out newsletters through the app as of December 7, 2019.”
Charged: Google News is broken. “There’s been a lot of discussion about the future of publishing over the last few years, particularly as Facebook traffic began cratering, leaving publishers scrambling to find new sources of traffic. What’s never really discussed, however, is how those platforms work, and how news sources end up getting mountains of traffic from them, let alone approved for them in the first place.”
London School of Economics and Political Science: Announcing LSE Press – a new open access publishing platform for the social sciences. “Today marks the official launch of LSE Press, the School’s new open access publishing platform. LSE Press will provide a platform for high-quality research in the social sciences, and – in line with LSE’s aim to lead in international, interdisciplinary, issue-oriented social science – will support the launch and development of academic-led publications that are innovative in their format, content, and reach. The Press platform is provided in partnership with Ubiquity Press.”
Handelsblatt: German publishers cozy up to weather social media storm. “Seven of Germany’s largest publishers unveiled a new powerhouse alliance that they hope will bolster print media against the growing dominance of social media. Three of Germany’s three largest media groups — Burda, Bauer and Funke Group — have joined forces with other well-known imprints such as Axel Springer and Spiegel Publishing, behind the investigative magazine Der Spiegel, in what’s being called a ‘publishers coalition’.”
Times Higher Education: Publisher drops plan to charge extra for old papers after outcry. “Publisher Taylor & Francis has dropped plans to charge extra for access to older research papers online, after more than 110 universities signed a letter of protest. The latest renewal of UK universities’ deal with Taylor & Francis, which was agreed in principle at the end of January but is yet to be signed, for the first time covered papers published only in the past 20 years.” It gets worse. Read the whole article.