Today’s Scholarly Kitchen blog post is an attempt by David Crotty — the blog’s editor — to quantify the increasing consolidation of the academic publishing industry. Crotty concludes: It’s helpful to have more data on the increasing power that a small number of academic publishers hold.

By Alice Fleerackers, with input from Yao-Hua Law, Mario Malički, Luisa Massarani, Chelsea Ratcliff, and François van Schalkwyk The annual Scholarly Communications Institute (SCI) offers opportunities for interdisciplinary and international teams to come together to pursue complex projects related to a common theme.

🔈 This is a transcript - listen to the original podcast on Anchor. [00:00:00] Chris Hartgerink: Hi, and welcome to the Open Update. I'm Chris Hartgerink for Liberate Science, joined by Sarahanne Field, here in Berlin still, [00:00:05] Sarahanne Field: Hello.

I have been a bit stuck in my head over the past few months. The world's changing so rapidly, it is increasingly hard to come to grips with things big and small. This even though there is a desire to jump to quick conclusions (a typical sign of overconfidence!). As a result of being stuck in my head, I have been absent on here. I am getting back in a habit of writing, although this simple post took me almost a week to write.

In OpenCitations, we like to define our infrastructure organization as “community-based” and “community-driven”, and we really mean it. The support coming from the number of academic libraries and consortia coming after OpenCitations’ involvement in the 2nd SCOSS funding cycle has made it possible, starting from 2020, to make OpenCitations develop from a small university project based on time-limited grant incomes to being an

Science communication is often considered equal with public relations or media coverage. However, the phenomenon is significantly more complex, and its most important aspects are not given enough attention. For instance, science includes how science can not only communicate but also interact with societal groups, and the potential impacts this can have on the perception of research in the public eye.

On the occasion of the 2023 Nobel Prize announcements, the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave symposium “ Does science need heroes?” attempted to explore the evolution of prize cultures over time and examine the current and potential roles of prizes in contemporary scientific practices.

🔈 This is a transcript of the Open Update podcast. Listen to the original audio on Anchor.fm. [00:00:00] Chris Hartgerink: Welcome back to the Open Update. We're back in the series talking about the decade of open science in the last 10 years, and then also this week we're gonna be talking a bit about, what do we foresee for the next 10 years?

The CWTS Leiden Ranking has always been a bit different from other university rankings. It has never sought to identify an overall ‘winner’ from amongst all the universities it features, preferring instead to offer a range of indicators and rank institutions on each one separately. It also looks beyond traditional citation measures and reputation surveys to assess concepts such as open access and gender balance.

Research assessment practices that largely rely on publication-driven assessments of research(ers) are slowly running out of steam. A remnant of a science system that is largely inward-focused and output-oriented, these assessments paint a rather monochrome picture of science that is not fit for today’s developments that reconfigure the relationship between science and society.