Rick Anderson revisits a 2020 post: One way or another, the #scholcomm community is going to choose either a diversity of publishing models or a monoculture, because it can’t have both. How will this choice be made, and by whom?
Revisiting a 2015 post that predicted the dominance of the cascade model of journal portfolio publishing and the increased dominance of the larger existing publishers in an open access market.
An SSP Meeting Session showing the results from publisher partnerships with Researchgate suggest the company is shifting from a source of potential infringement to a distribution channel that is being folded into more and more organizations.
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.
An interview with principals of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, whose work significantly shaped the Holdren Memo on public access to federally-funded research.
An interview with principals of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, whose work significantly shaped the Holdren Memo on public access to federally-funded research.
The AUPresses Library Relations Committee asks Peter Berkery and Mary Lee Kennedy to share their thoughts about how relations between publishers and libraries have changed.
A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?
Annual Reviews will offer their journals as Subscribe to Open. Come read our interview with Richard Gallagher, President and Editor-in-Chief.
Haseeb Irfanullah reflects on the recent Scholarly Kitchen webinar discussing the future of research as a global exercise.
A.J. Boston offers recommendations for how funding agencies and research institutions can better lead the change toward open access.
The value of streaming video as a genre of scholarly communication is just being established. Today, Danielle Cooper and Dylan Ruediger profile the leading start-ups in this space.
In a new twist on academic fraud, a company now offers to pay you to write and publish book reviews that will be credited to someone else.
In a novel license agreement, Elsevier agrees to open backfile content from a consortium of elite private institutions. Will other libraries and publishers follow this model?
Joe Esposito looks back at a 2011 post offering a parable of the role in innovation in publishing and makes the case that we should not criticize companies that try and fail to do new things.