Revisiting a 2017 post looking at how, due to the slowing growth of content licensing, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
As growth in content licensing slows, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
Scientific workflow providers Elsevier, Digital Science, and COS differ in their strategy. To what extent will they provide end-to-end integrated workflows?
Major scholarly publishers have made substantial investments in preprints in recent years, integrating preprint deposit into manuscript submission workflows.
An emerging duopoly for the new class of scientific research workflow products could marginalize publishers large and small to the benefit of the Big Two. This first of two pieces provides the strategic context, while tomorrow we will review options for those publishers at risk of being left behind.
With scholarly communications business models embracing the entirety of the research process, how can visualizations help us understand scholarly workflows?
As workflow providers build deep relationships with scientists early in the research lifecycle, how can publishers establish and maintain strong author relationships? This piece proposes a number of fundamental strategic options.
The analysis of workflow is a primary activity for many publishers today, but new workflows can only lead us to where we have already been. We have to get beyond analyzing workflow and focus instead on new product development.
In the shift beyond content licensing and towards supporting researcher workflow, Elsevier has few competitors. A key question is whether Digital Science and SpringerNature should be understood strategically as one company, or two. Who owns Digital Science?
Research workflow providers can be expected to lock in researchers and universities to their products through a variety of tactics. This piece provides an overview of what is meant by lock-in and a taxonomy of approaches that may be pursued.
The crisis of information integrity is real. Integrity of workflow — analyses of process, investment in process, transparency of process — is the intervention
Two surveys reveal that scientists use social media. But maybe not because social media help them work — maybe because social media help them socialize.
A fresh mapping of open-science tools for the researcher workflow reveals numerous gaps and opportunities for software solutions in the name of scientific progress.
Byron Russell, John Sack, Alison McGonagle-O’Connell, and Tony Alves look at the way publishers are adapting their traditional submission workflows to better integrate the use of preprints.
Why is the unified dream of library software still so strong among the library community? In an ever more diverse library landscape, why do we still envision and talk about THE library system? And what are the alternatives?