So I read Jeffrey Brainard’s piece in Science magazine on Clarivate’s decision to punish eLife for innovating – by stripping eLife of a proprietary Journal Impact Factor™ number, that Clarivate itself awards (sidenote: to be clear, I see no value in Journal Impact Factors as they are statistically illiterate, irreproducible, and easily gameable, amongst many other issues that have long been documented). With the

Das von der Berlin University Alliance (Obj.

Workshop report from the Recognition and Rewards Festival in Utrecht

Authors: Malte Dreyer, Maike Neufend and Martina Ben z Open Access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed.

On Monday 29th June 2020, I learned from Retraction Watch that Clarivate, the for-profit proprietor of Journal Impact Factor ™ has newly “suppressed” 33 journals from their indexing service.

The new and improved Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings 2020 were published this week with as much online fanfare as THE could muster. Unfortunately, they are not improved enough. Sydney University’s Duncan Ivison makes case for impact rankings. And then you notice the advert.

Ranking organisations are seeking to diversify the measures use to evaluate universities.

On Monday 30 May I gave evidence at a European Commission hearing on Access to Scientific Information. This is the text that I spoke from. Just to re-inforce my usual disclaimer I was not speaking on behalf of my employer but as an independent researcher. We live in a world where there is more information available at the tips of our fingers than even existed 10 or 20 years ago.