{.size-large .wp-image-11937 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“11937” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2015/05/13/the-scale-model-of-the-amnh-apatosaurine-skeleton-amnh-460/amnh-460-skeleton-model-2/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/amnh-460-skeleton-model-2.jpg” orig-size=“2272,1113” comments-opened=“1”

In response to my post Copyright from the lens of reality and other rebuttals of his original post, Elseviers General Counsel Mark Seeley has provided a lengthy comment. Here’s my response (also posted as a comment on the original article, but I’m waiting for it to be moderated.)   Hi, Mark, thanks for engaging. You write: Here, at least, we are in complete agreement.

{.size-large .wp-image-11929 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“11929” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2015/05/09/what-should-we-tell-people-about-the-amnh-apatosaurine/amnh-460-left-anterolateral-view/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/amnh-460-left-anterolateral-view.jpg” orig-size=“2737,1662” comments-opened=“1”

This post is a response to Copyright from the lens of a lawyer (and poet) , posted a couple of days ago by Elsevier’s General Counsel, Mark Seeley. Yes, I am a slave to SIWOTI syndrome. No, I shouldn’t be wasting my time responding to this. Yes, I ought to be working on that exciting new manuscript that we SV-POW!er Rangers have up and running.

While Mike’s been off having fun at the Royal Society, this has been happening: Lots of feathers flying right now over the situation at the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA). The short, short version is that AMPCo, the company that publishes MJA, made plans to outsource production of the journal, and apparently some sub-editing and administrative functions as well, to Elsevier.

[Today’s live-blog is brought to you by Yvonne Nobis, science librarian at Cambridge, UK. Thanks, Yvonne! — Mike.] Session 1 — The Journal Article: is the end in sight? Slightly late start due to trains – ! Just arrived to hear Aileen Fyfe University of St Andrews saying that something similar to journal articles will be needed for ‘quite some time’. Steven Hall, IOP.

I’ll try to live-blog the first day of part 2 of the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication meeting, as I did for the first day of part 1. We’ll see how it goes. Here’s the schedule for today and tomorrow. Session 1: the reproducibility problem Chair: Alex Halliday, vice-president of the Royal Society Introduction to reproducibility.

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

[This is a guest-post by Richard Poynder , a long-time observer and analyst of academic publishing now perhaps best known for the very detailed posts on his Open and Shut blog. It was originally part of a much longer post on that blog, the introduction to an interview with the publisher MDPI.

{.size-large .wp-image-11758 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“11758” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2015/04/27/roadside-dinos-of-yermo-california/peggy-sues-diner-saurs-london-with-sauropod/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/peggy-sues-diner-saurs-london-with-sauropod.jpg” orig-size=“2200,2933” comments-opened=“1”

When a paper goes for peer-review at PLOS ONE, the reviewers are told not to make any judgement about how important or sexy or “impacty” the paper is — to judge it only on methodical soundness. All papers that are judged sound are to be published without making guesses about which will and won’t improve the journal’s reputation through being influential down the line.