Comments on: Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already?

By: Why boycott Elsevier? | The Quantum Pontiff

Why boycott Elsevier? | The Quantum Pontiff — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:12:56 +0000

[...] So what can we do about it? A boycott of Elsevier is a good first step. But really we need to change the system so that publishers no longer hold copyright. I’m not idealistic enough to imagine that arxiv.org is enough. The issue is not so much that it lacks refereeing (which would be remedied easily enough), but because it lacks scarcity. To see what I mean, imagine starting a free online-only virtual journal that simply selects papers from the arxiv. The entire journal archives could be a single html file of less than a megabyte. But without space constraints, it would need to credibly signal that papers accepted into it were high quality. This is nontrivial, and involves convincing authors, readers, referees and hiring committees, all more or less simultaneously. As a community, we need to figure out a way to do this, so that the internet can finally do what it was designed for, and disrupt scientific publishing. [...]

By: The Costs of Print « The Scholarly Kitchen

The Costs of Print « The Scholarly Kitchen — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:40:58 +0000

[...] I have written about previously, the STM and scholarly publishing industry has not heretofore been substantively disrupted due to [...]

By: Michael’s Pick for 2010: The Disruption (or Not) of Scientific Publishing « The Scholarly Kitchen

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:20:52 +0000

[...] Selected Post: Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Yet? [...]

By: The Future Is Not A Zero-Sum Game « The Scholarly Kitchen

The Future Is Not A Zero-Sum Game « The Scholarly Kitchen — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:24:33 +0000

[...] or book into what really matters and what is best presented by this form. Michael Clarke’s eloquent arguments about the nature of scholarly publishing give some insight as to what is likely to stay with us. If those values are best served by the [...]

By: Software Carpentry » Was Designed To, But Didn’t

Software Carpentry » Was Designed To, But Didn’t — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:27:31 +0000

[...] Clarke has written a thoughtful post exploring why the web hasn’t disrupted scientific publishing, even though it was designed to do exactly [...]

By: Open Access News 10/23/2010 |

Open Access News 10/23/2010 | — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:31:40 +0000

[...] Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already? (reaction from Chris Lott) [...]

By: Disrupting Publishing… and Writing? – Ruminate

Disrupting Publishing… and Writing? – Ruminate — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:24:11 +0000

[...] Brian Lamb’s delicious bookmarks this morning, a tasty read: “Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already?”. The comment thread is as useful as the [...]

By: Sounding the Revolution « The Scholarly Kitchen

Sounding the Revolution « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:19:47 +0000

[...] on CDs might be better disseminated without that particular container). That being said, there are some inherent bulwarks to disruption that have also kept the industry perhaps more stable than it might have otherwise expected to be. [...]

By: Let the Adaptations Begin! « The Scholarly Kitchen

Let the Adaptations Begin! « The Scholarly Kitchen — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:30:21 +0000

[...] this blog, we’ve talked before about how culture trumps technology or why scholarly publishing hasn’t been disrupted yet, but I think academic culture is in a sort of passive-aggressive dance with change. Look around, [...]

By: How Science is rediscovering “Open” and what it means for government | eaves.ca

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:41:41 +0000

[...] Pretty much everybody in government should read this fantastic New York Times article Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s. On one hand the article is a window into everything that has gone wrong with science – about how what used to be a competitive but open, peer review process has become a competitive but closed and intellectual property driven process (one need only look at scientific journals to see how slow and problematic the process has become). [...]