In a move entirely consistent with its strategy to pivot beyond content licensing, Elsevier has acquired bepress, the institutional repository provider.
Scholarly publishers have long thought in categories such as journals, monographs, textbooks, and reference. Reference as a category is splitting in two.
A group of scholarly publishers has launched a fellowship to improve diversity and inclusion among editorial employees.
Is our objective for open access and scholarly communication to maximize public access to research outputs or to bend the cost curve for licensed e-resources? Definitions of success matter.
Yesterday, Ithaka S+R published findings from our triennial survey of library deans and directors at academic institutions in the United States. The report examines the strategic directions of academic libraries as well as their staffing and spending plans for the coming years. The pivot towards new research, teaching, and learning services, and towards distinctive collections, is continuing, although it is encountering some headwinds.
Several services attempt to gather up “all” of the content across publishers. This post provides an overview and taxonomy.
As growth in content licensing slows, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
University presses bring a diversity not only of costs, scale, and business models, but also of organizational capacity, incentives, and objectives. As efforts are mounted to transition monograph publishing to open access, it is vital that we recognize the richness and complexity of this community.
This summer, Project MUSE announced that it is developing its ability to host and distribute open access (OA) ebooks. Project MUSE’s director Wendy Queen spoke with me recently about this program and some of the broader strategic issues we should be contemplating.
The University of Florida and Elsevier have entered into a partnership to build links between the institutional repository and ScienceDirect, which has received quite a bit of criticism in recent weeks.I have found it useful to try to understand the different sides of what seems to me to be a debate about how best to utilize the increasingly mature infrastructure and programmatic capacity for scholarly communications.