Despite the fact that the Google Books settlement was not approved, Google’s mass digitization has forever transformed the landscape of publishing, libraries, and the way we think about information.
Digital media makes it possible to work in new formats. The medium-length work, between a book and an article, promises to open up a new variety of scholarly communications.
Algorithmic pricing on Amazon creates a book worth millions, and the problem seems to be repeating itself.
Does an increase in article retractions signal a corrupt publishing system or just better policing?
The disintermediation of publishers and libraries is more difficult than many suppose, as each link in the value chain does in fact add value to the process of scholarly communications.
An entire issue of a society’s newsmagazine is taken down, and an editor resigns, after a slightly uncomfortable attempt at humor. We’re talkin’ ’bout overreaction.
Promises of more citations if authors pay are problematic in more ways than one.
An April Fool’s post is bested by reality — but that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t silly anyhow.
It’s time to pay up! The Kitchen ends free meals for freeloaders.
Scandal sends shockwaves through library community. Publishers, meanwhile, see business in counter-culture books aimed at naughty librarians.
Blogging still gets no respect. Is that because we’re more hidebound about our communication advances than the 16th century was?
A best-selling author turns down a $500,000 advance in order to self-publish, while a self-published author who has earned $2 million takes a book contract. What’s going on here?
The Google Books Settlement actually hit its second roadblock this week. Here’s why, and where matter might go from here.
The Google Books Settlement hits a barrier. The implications of this will need to be sorted out over the coming days and weeks.
The HarperCollins e-book lending limitations provide lessons in how both sides typically deal with change.