🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

The editorial rebellion leading to the creation of Glossa is well described here. Bravo once again, Johan! (For the Journal of Informetrics, my colleague Vincent Larivière must also be congratulated). uu.nl/en/background/…

Actually, asking the first question leads to the second one: as long as the commercial imperative remains, the task of supporting scientific communication is hopelessly entangled with the quest for profits.

Amusingly naive... Where are the rankings and their roles in this diagram? Are journals, especially commercial journals, really useful? How are evaluations conducted? By whom? for whom? What is a science policy for? Etc. etc.

Une piste possible d'alternatives : alternativeto.net/software/airta…

Are transformative agreements (TA) so different from hybrid journals? The latter involve individuals and journals; the former involve platforms and institutions. Both muddy the waters, and they are designed to confuse issues around open science.

C'est le moment d'accepter... et de subvertir... :-)

Unless my admittedly weak German is worse than I think, the precarious nature of some teachers is also mentioned in the rector's statement. Evaluating teaching is a real issue, but standard tests of students treat schools like an assembly line with one single output.

It only tends to prove that Frontiers is not exactly at the frontiers of news (including that of Jon's sad ending), and owns the sensitivity of a piece of granite. But no surprise here, especially regarding the latter. Just check the history of Frontiers as a publisher.

Distinguish between kinds of publishers! Commercial publishers do not invest to innovate or imagine the future of acad. publishing; they invest to control acad. publishing (and beyond). Furthermore, what do researchers really need? Publishers, or publishing functions?

You might consider signing: ostp-letter.github.io I just did! It has to do with the OSTP memo recenly published. Let us remember that publishing functions can serve researchers; publishers generally serve themselves. Paying attention to this is the next big step.

Wonderful new study of journal publishing at the Royal Society of London. Totally in open access. Bravo to both the authors and UCL Press! discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1015…

The FAO claims to help the "Global South" with a conference next week: fao.org/3/cc2199en/cc2… The line-up is most interesting: WIPO, STM, Elsevier "Foundation", Research4Life. How about SciELO, Redalyc, SPARC, POSI for balance?

An important move by private charities to dissociate certification from branding: elifesciences.org/for-the-press/…. Bravo! Now, what about public funders?

Listening to "Open Access Open Knowledge" at

Come, come, Elea. You are the greatest!

Indeed. Local problems do not lead to local solutions; they contribute to universal knowledge. Creating a "ghetto" of local questions would be counter-productive.

DOAJ warning (to be shared): A website and a Twitter account use the name 'DOAJ Publications' or 'Doaj publisher'. DOAJ asked them to stop using the DOAJ name: it is probably being used to mislead people. Info about this outfit would be useful.

The issue is also to allow the emergence of questions fed by local concerns. Where problems originate should not affect their value. But publication hierarchies tend to downplay problems originating outside recognized elites. We need a basic "initiative" right.