A website called Library Genesis, apparently a sister site to the notorious Sci-Hub, has ripped off thousands of university-press titles.
Superstar biologists have grabbed headlines by putting their work directly online. For the rank and file, though, the system still runs on peer review.
Under fire from critics, PLOS ONE retracted the article and promised a "deep dive" into its article-approval process. But some say it may have overreacted.
Last year PLOS ONE published 10 percent fewer papers than it did two years ago. Its editors say that’s a sign that more major publishers are taking open-access publications seriously.
The takeover of a family-run press by an industry giant has its authors worried anew about consolidation in scholarly publishing.
All the editors and their entire editorial board resigned after Elsevier refused to make Lingua fully open access and to transfer ownership of the 66-year-old journal to them.
Of course you haven’t. But Cow Country — a newish novel that one critic thought was secretly written by the famous author — takes on the subject.
Federal agencies are putting new rules into effect this fall, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.
As more institutions create repositories of their own researchers’ work, the publisher is telling them they must respect waiting periods before allowing free access to Elsevier-owned content.
An appeals court said an earlier decision had misapplied fair-use standards in finding that the university did not violate copyright law.
The announcement marks a new, pragmatic phase in the debate over how widely published research should be shared, and how quickly.
The group’s goal is to develop a positive agenda around copyright, says one of its founders, and to arm writers with information to help them make decisions.