In support of Open Access Week, we asked our community how we can achieve equitable participation in Open Research. Part 1 today, Part 2 tomorrow. Come share your views!
Springer Nature recently invested further in Research Square Company to become majority owner of this preprint and author services platform. Today, an interview with Rachel Burley and Eugenie Regan about what to expect.
The defining aspect of such an organization is that it operates as an industry nexus.
William Park on the potential for publishers from the untapped $1-2 billion opportunity within the small to medium sized enterprises (SME) market.
Results of this partnership signal we should expect future expansion of content syndication.
What have academic book publishers been for? And what might they be for, in the future? Part 2
What have academic book publishers been for? And what might they be for, in the future?
How can collective action models to support open access, like Subscribe to Open, be applied to academic publishing? An interview with Raym Crow.
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
As the big deal falls, we are witnessing a shift in academic library purchasing power closer to the point of need.
Despite controversies, MDPI has flourished and are now the 5th largest scholarly publisher in the market. Christos Petrou offers an analysis of their enormous levels of growth.
The COVID pandemic may leave us stuck between a growing consensus that open science is the superior way to drive progress and an inability to invest what may be needed to make it happen.
Today, Joe and Roger analyze the variety of firms to which the academy can outsource scholarly communication and adjacent priorities: consortia, societies, and commercial enterprises.
By calling its new policy a “Rights Retention Strategy,” cOAlition S is engaging in doublespeak. This strategy actually does exactly the opposite of what it claims.
Journal submission fees would reduce the continuously growing editorial and peer review burdens while allowing for better levels of rigor and oversight. Roy Kaufman makes a case for their adoption.