Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

View preprint
RT @curtrice: Preparing for my talk tomorrow on scientific publishing, and I suddenly recall that I’ve published on this topic ;) “Ten myt…
reply repost on X like
1190 days ago
Preparing for my talk tomorrow on scientific publishing, and I suddenly recall that I’ve published on this topic ;) “Ten myths around open scholarly publishing”. @ranilillanjum https://t.co/lDi3N0L2r6
reply repost on X like
RT @panbibliotekar: Дуже зрозуміла ілюстрація процесу розгляду рукописів з препринтами та без у статті про міфи відкритого наукового видавн…
reply repost on X like
Дуже зрозуміла ілюстрація процесу розгляду рукописів з препринтами та без у статті про міфи відкритого наукового видавництва https://t.co/SGtaON07TR https://t.co/o6f3z6nQtc
reply repost on X like
RT @CUOpenResearch: Ten open scholarly publishing myths https://t.co/BKr9CjPrG0 via @PeerJPreprints
reply repost on X like
Ten open scholarly publishing myths https://t.co/BKr9CjPrG0 via @PeerJPreprints
reply repost on X like
2394 days ago
Some leadership would be nice also, And keep handy a copy of https://t.co/OFrcNUCMLW. " Ten myths around open scholarly publishing" https://t.co/Kp3Qpk2Skz
reply repost on X like
2408 days ago
@AdrianoAguzzi @ashleydfarley Nope.... reason these publishers exist is because authors are ignorant about / inattentive to business models of journals and because they haven't read @Protohedgehog et al "Ten myths around open scholarly publishing" https://t.co/OFrcNUCMLW
reply repost on X like
RT @boykoff: Tennant et al (including @thackerpd) map 10 myths of open scholarly publishing that "often derail, underrcut, or distort discu…
reply repost on X like
RT @annviera3: Elsevier is so worried it is advertising on @NPR. Ad content is roughly: E curates world's knowledge, gets it out of the la…
reply repost on X like
2420 days ago
Elsevier is so worried it is advertising on @NPR. Ad content is roughly: E curates world's knowledge, gets it out of the lab (behind locked paywalls at 30% per year profit). Read pls, keep Fig 1 & 5 on yr pinboard for when OA myths are stated as facts https://t.co/KhqUGhqdgy https://t.co/iOaRboDj3f
reply repost on X like
RT @boykoff: Tennant et al (including @thackerpd) map 10 myths of open scholarly publishing that "often derail, underrcut, or distort discu…
reply repost on X like
RT @boykoff: Tennant et al (including @thackerpd) map 10 myths of open scholarly publishing that "often derail, underrcut, or distort discu…
reply repost on X like
2431 days ago
Tennant et al (including @thackerpd) map 10 myths of open scholarly publishing that "often derail, underrcut, or distort discussion" = they identify 'core issues' & "to advance discussion on the current state and best practices for academic publishing" https://t.co/uOJW2KOEzz https://t.co/ZY8BZdot0R
reply repost on X like
@jdfaviz @wxyao23 @Protohedgehog What about assessing the value of individual pieces instead of globally saying that if it is in VIS (or nature) it is necessarily thoroughly peer-reviewed or a very good piece of research. I again refer to all the args by @Protohedgehog et al. (https://t.co/bvOgBNfU5H myth 2). 1/
reply repost on X like
@wxyao23 For some pointers as to why IF is flawed, I suggest @Protohedgehog's recent paper: https://t.co/bvOgBNfU5H also, figured you might want to chime in @Protohedgehog :)
reply repost on X like
2443 days ago
This can be achieved NOW, w/out the extra time and fear of trying to hold onto copyright on the front end, by archiving openly upon acceptance. Use @sherparomeo to see what is already allowed. See Tennant et al preprint https://t.co/OFrcNUCMLW to avoid OA myths https://t.co/041qlk6jQH
reply repost on X like
2444 days ago
RT @Protohedgehog: New at @PeerJPreprints: Ten myths around open scholarly publishing. We want your feedback! What did we get wrong? What c…
reply repost on X like
RT @rscsam: "Think that publishing a preprint will get you scooped? This paper discusses this exact issue: Ten myths around open scholarly…
reply repost on X like
2446 days ago
RT @rscsam: "Think that publishing a preprint will get you scooped? This paper discusses this exact issue: Ten myths around open scholarly…
reply repost on X like
RT @rscsam: "Think that publishing a preprint will get you scooped? This paper discusses this exact issue: Ten myths around open scholarly…
reply repost on X like
RT @rscsam: "Think that publishing a preprint will get you scooped? This paper discusses this exact issue: Ten myths around open scholarly…
reply repost on X like
RT @rscsam: "Think that publishing a preprint will get you scooped? This paper discusses this exact issue: Ten myths around open scholarly…
reply repost on X like
@LoekBrinkman @jeroenson @RedeSciELO @PLOS @arxiv @BioMedCentral @SpringerNature Yup. Because people don't use the green route as often as they could/should. Very low rates usually across publishers. Why embargoes? Because control, fear, who knows. Myth 8 here addresses this point: https://t.co/zLNLoWqVJh (revised ver in press)
reply repost on X like
2447 days ago
@matt_ruen @ariannabec We argued a similar point here https://t.co/2la8Ki4U2A
reply repost on X like