Difference between revisions of "Talk:Journal publishing reform"
(Comment with other perspectives on related problems with Elsvier for us as research news publisher.)
(→Crowd fund: new section)
|Line 16:||Line 16:|
Latest revision as of 21:48, 30 January 2013
Due to related problems but from the view of research news publisher at the Nyfikenvital.org I have very seldom the resent years at all followed research at Elsevier. Access to articles do require extra work as getting other information needed.
Another problematic area since for ever would be the abstract pages which do not quite work with enough trust to use as references (the general rule for us are linking all related research to news stories). Session id:es and other problems do cause problems.
Hence we very seldom write research stories related to research published in Elsevier. I do think besides practical extra work one spare that it gives value to the readers since I doubt most have library access but still some time see value for work or private to read the articles. Which they get from a lot of other publishers. If the articles can be found at the universities through Google we do though write about the research news (but not linking the abstract page at Elsevier).
I made I notice of your revolution at the english resource blog Research Sweden: http://www.researchsweden.org/2012/02/elsevier-boycott-hits-hard.html
And will most likely write a longer article in Nyfiken vital also with other general dimension such as open access.
Feel free to use any quote as needed.
Hans Husman email@example.com
Why can't we just crowd fund peer-review?