publication

The whole thing smacks of hypocrisy and self publication.

After all, why would you publish in some no name publication instead of The Atlantic?

Nor has my correspondent.\nIf you create Open Access publications you expect - even hope - that people will dig into them.

About 7 years ago one of my graduate students \nwas browsing 20 publications from ACS to create a vocabulary.

Simply because some publication or source you may like has performed some sort of statistical study doesn't have a lot of meaning on it's own.

People have been moaning about how we're all becoming socially isolated since the publication of the first novel.

Pandora opens the box...\nWham!The whole university got cut off immediately from the whole of ACS publications.

Up until now most search engine development has gone on at companies with little publication of technical details.

For a person associated with a publication I would expect a much higher level of knowledge of things like 'how to cite' and 'how to attribute' and maybe a dash of copyright 101.

" This means that in the examiner's view, every single element of claim 19 can be found in a single prior-art reference --- in this case a patent publication by Lira, and, separately, a patent issued to Ording --- and therefore the claim is unpatentable under 35 USC 102 [3].

Those researchers have told me about other researchers who are trying to clean up the published literature in psychology, for example Jelte Wicherts, whose article "Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science"[2] in an open-access journal suggests general procedures to improve scientific publishing, for example by changing the incentive structure around reviewing papers submitted for publication.