Are the scholarly publishing tools we're using today still the right ones?
What is 'right'?
1) Registration (author, date, that was the piece)
2) Distribution - no problem in the time of Internet ie. blog, online journal. Includes formatting (device)
3) Validation - screening for rigour
4) Designation - Getting recognized in promotion committee, branding, co-branding with other scientists
5) Push Marketing - publication, not just putting the information out there but to reaching the right readers
6) Filtration issue - selectivity
7) Preservation - libraries, institutional repositories. Ensure it endures.
Knowledge mobilization - bring collaboration early into the research. Engaging the public, takes it out of the ivory tower.
Is the monograph still the best format in the humanities?
Make the research available - make it less condescending.
Is the journal article still the best in STEM?
Peer reviews would be more effective if peer reviewer is known and expert in the field.
What would happen if scientists were not allowed to transfer their work/copyright to third party? The system wouldn't break down but publishers would be forced to re-examine open access model.
Science is getting data and coming to conclusions as well as funds for dissemination.
People make impact factors important. People should stop caring. Shouldn't be a proxy for quality.
Flawed incentives creates dysfunctional market.
Amy Brand Harvard doesn't use Impact Factor. Is Harvard unique? Work with AAU.