This is pretty opaque, but I think it is really pretty great.
"The correlations were much lower between Mendeley readers and citation counts for conference papers than for journal articles in Building & Construction Engineering and Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Hence, there seem to be disciplinary differences in the usefulness of Mendeley readership counts as impact indicators for conference papers, even between fields for which conferences are important."
"For several years Georgia State was involved in litigation over the fair use doctrine. Specifically a consortium of publishers backed by Oxford, Cambridge and Sage sued Georgia State over copyright violations by many of the faculty. A decision has now been rendered. The Court backed Georgia State in almost every instance, finding no copyright violation. However, the Court did lay down some rules - in particular you can use no more than 10% or one chapter, whichever is shorter, of any book."
Really nice advice on how to write a good review. Not all (any?) of my reviews have been this good. I'll try to fix that in the future!
"Proofs of obscure provenance are sometimes overlooked at first, but usually not for long: A major paper like Royen’s would normally get submitted and published somewhere like the Annals of Statistics, experts said, and then everybody would hear about it. But Royen, not having a career to advance, chose to skip the slow and often demanding peer-review process typical of top journals. He opted instead for quick publication in the Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics, a periodical based in Allahabad, India, that was largely unknown to experts and which, on its website, rather suspiciously listed Royen as an editor. (He had agreed to join the editorial board the year before.)"
"A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals."
ACM is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the open access world.
