Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
'Though academic libraries have been frantically cutting subscriptions to make ends meet, journals now consume 65% of their budgets.' Photograph: Peter M Fisher/Corbis Who are the most ruthless capitalists in the western world? Whose monopolistic practices make Walmart look like a corner shop and Rupert Murdoch a socialist? You won't guess the answer in a month of Sundays. While there are plenty of candidates, my vote goes not to the banks, the oil companies or the health insurers, but – wait for it – to academic publishers.
Samantha Murphy, contributor (Image: Jo Ito) Tens of millions of people live, work and play in virtual worlds where anything goes. Greg Lastowka thinks we need to police these lawless frontiers
Rejoice, webizens, for today will forever be remembered in the annals of crowdsourced Internet vengeance! When writer Monica Gaudio discovered that a magazine she'd never heard of, Cooks Source , had reprinted an article from her web site about medieval apple pies without her permission, she wrote to the editor asking for an apology and a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism. Here's what world-class bonehead idiot Judith Griggs, editor of Cooks Source , had to say in response: "...honestly Monica, the web is considered 'public domain' and you should be happy we just didn't 'lift' your whole article and put someone else's name on it!...
the economics of Open Source
Last week, my fellow Guardian columnist Helienne Lindvall published a piece headlined The cost of free , in which she called it "ironic" that "advocates of free online content" (including me) "charge hefty fees to speak at events". Lindvall says she spoke to someone who approached an agency I once worked with to hire me for a lecture and was quoted $10,000-$20,000 (£6,300-£12,700) to speak at a college and $25,000 to speak at a conference. Lindvall goes on to talk about the fees commanded by other speakers, including Wired editor Chris Anderson, author of a book called "Free" ( which I reviewed here in July 2009 ), Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde and marketing expert Seth Godin. In Lindvall's view, all of us are part of a united ideology that exhorts artists to give their work away for free, but we don't practice what we preach because we charge so much for our time.
Photo via Todd Huffman via Flickr Creative Commons What happens when data is available for anyone to access and use? What happens when projects are open source so people can contribute their skills to improve it? We're now more than ever connected to a wealth of information stored literally at our fingertips -- if we can access it. So the concept of sharing is useful beyond creating tool libraries or Zipcar services.
Oops! Sorry, the page you requested either doesn't exist or isn't available right now! Please check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. If you're having trouble locating a destination on Yahoo!
September 28th, 2010 • 08:09 I put up a version of this post up a few days ago at my other blog, Take As Directed , on the new Public Library of Science (PLoS) network, PLoS Blogs . There, the post netted a total of one comment . That one was not from a chemist but rather from my respected library information scientist colleague, Christina Pikas , formerly with me at ScienceBlogs and now at the vibrant Scientopia blogger collective .
A fragmenting virtual world THE first internet boom, a decade and a half ago, resembled a religious movement. Omnipresent cyber-gurus, often framed by colourful PowerPoint presentations reminiscent of stained glass, prophesied a digital paradise in which not only would commerce be frictionless and growth exponential, but democracy would be direct and the nation-state would no longer exist.
<a href="//ad.doubleclick.net/jump/teg.lasn/djeu/a;subs=n;wsub=n;sdn=n;!c=16963563;dcopt=ist;pos=ldr_top;sz=728x90,970x90,970x250;tile=1;ord=260105462?" target="_blank"><img src="//ad.doubleclick.net/ad/teg.lasn/djeu/a;subs=n;wsub=n;sdn=n;!c=16963563;dcopt=ist;pos=ldr_top;sz=728x90,970x90,970x250;tile=1;ord=260105462?" width="728" height="90" border="0" alt=""></a>
Someone, somewhere, has been viewing my LinkedIn profile. I know this, see, because I’ve had a couple of calls and emails from various recruitment agencies, and I’ve seen that recruitment ‘specialists’ have left their footprints all over LinkedIn. One of them called me out of the blue at work. When it became clear that I’m not looking to leave my current job at the moment he asked if I knew anyone else who might be appropriate. He subsequently sent me another couple of openings.
28 June 2010, 13:47 by Glyn Moody Companies based around open source are still comparatively young. So it remains an open question what happens to them in the long term. As open source becomes more widely accepted, an obvious growth path for them is to be bought by a bigger, traditional software company. The concern then becomes: how does the underlying open source code fare in those circumstances?
The term " open source" is being stretched pretty broad these days. Even the Tea Party wants a piece of it. But when a Utah high school named itself Open High , it deserved the moniker. Not only does the school rely heavily on open source technologies, but it is one of the first secondary education schools worldwide crafting an entirely open source curriculum to be shared freely with others.
Mind the bugs in the system: papers. Photo: Jenn Forman Orth When I lost a WiFi connection recently, I was left with the usual error message, which led me to look more attentively at the URL than I am used to. Its content part read “Lets-Stop-Publishing-Research”. I had come there because the link appeared interesting in some way (don’t remember the details now), yet stopping to publish research was not what I would have expected to see.
A faculty friend of mine forwarded me the email following. I have redacted it to remove publisher-identifying information. You can read about the service if you like, though. (I'm not connected with the said service in any way. I think its use in this context borders on the obscene.)
The concept of the scientific journal is in dare need of adapting to the times we live in. To the long stream of observations in this direction ( my favourite ), Heinz Pampel and Lambert Heller have now added a set of eight criteria that they deem to be important “für ein informationswissenschaftliches Journal der Zukunft”. I basically agree with all they state in there (indeed, some of the phrasings could have been mine), so my criticism focuses on the format: The criteria were posted only in a version that is not editable by anyone else. Of course, their CC-BY license allows me to take a copy and make it editable, which I will do in the following.