About us | About Scoope | Contact us

 Sponsor Links
| Articles | White Papers | Presentations 

Articles                                                                                                  TOP

Scientific publishers are stealing from you, and you don't even know it

A STEM student at the University of Connecticut, or a student in any discipline have had to utilise online journal articles at some point. Hitting the 'paywalls,' as they have come to be known, is probably just as common as doing research itself. Any student that has ever used Google Scholar or the library databases knows that sometimes they just do not have access to all of the knowledge they want to possess for a given project, simply because there are not enough funds to pay for every single journal out there. What most students do not know is that the thousands of dollars required to buy these journals do not go where most would expect it to go. When they subscribe to journals, the money paid to the publisher is not given to the authors and researchers of the articles they are publishing, nor is it given to the individuals editing the articles. Instead, the money goes directly to the publisher.
Click here

Six Concerns Over India Joining the Plan S Coalition for Science Journals

Research-funders are required to pay the APCs so that the research they fund can be published in OA journals, and the funders can mandate that studies they enable only be published in such journals. With India set to join the Plan S coalition, this means the Government of India, through the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), will pay to have Indian scientists' papers published in OA journals. In turn, everyone in the world will be able to access publicly funded research from India, and vice versa. At the outset, Plan S's participants want to set up a global commons of scientific knowledge. But the publishing scheme it proposes presents a distinct set of problems that, if not addressed, could capsize this Titanic reform of scientific publishing.
Click here

UVA Library, UVA Press partner to make original scholarship freely available

Students and parents often and understandably object to the high cost of textbooks, and colleges and universities also incur high costs to make academic research in scholarly journals available to students and faculty alike. It is a problem that affects everyone - students, researchers and scholars, the colleges and universities where they work, and the public who often have no easy access to the latest studies. A new partnership at the University of Virginia aims to solve these problems and to make new knowledge more readily available - and free. Called 'Aperio,' the new digital publishing partnership between the University Library and University of Virginia Press employs the latest technology to produce 'open access' to research, scholarship and other educational materials - eventually including textbooks.
Click here

Journal publishes largest collection of scientific publications by Native Hawaiians

An interdisciplinary group of researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi teamed up with colleagues from other universities and several Native Hawaiian communities to compile conservation findings in a special issue of Sustainability that will be the largest collection of scientific publications made by Native Hawaiians. The group's work focuses on biocultural restoration in Hawaiʻi. The work collectively highlights Hawaiʻi as a global leader in the realm of biocultural restoration and aims to influence policy both locally and internationally. Biocultural restoration is an approach that incorporates both humanity and its connections to nature in a larger effort to restore the health, function and resilience of both land- and seascapes. Articles in the special issue range in focus from the theoretical, to philosophical, to applied aspects of such an approach to restoration.
Click here

Chemists like to experiment, just not with opening peer review

Skeptics say that no one knows whether peer review is really broken because it has not been studied enough. They need a change in the incentive system to improve reviews themselves by rewarding overworked reviewers for participating. Many chemists are skeptical. They think the traditional peer review system is working well, or at least well enough. Only a handful of the hundreds of chemistry journals have experimented with new peer review paradigms, compared with dozens in biology and medicine. And surveys have shown that chemists are among the scientists least likely to support changes to peer review.
Click here

For banner ads click here