When the Wolf Finally Arrives: Big Deal Cancellations in North American Libraries
For years, we in libraries have been predicting the imminent demise of the manifestly-unsustainable Big Deal — and yet it has persisted. Now that may be changing.
For years, we in libraries have been predicting the imminent demise of the manifestly-unsustainable Big Deal — and yet it has persisted. Now that may be changing.
Many of the finest scholarly publications can boast of exemplary editorial programs, but the advent of Gold Open Access, especially when mandated by funding agencies, may make this kind of editorial activity a thing of the past.
Science’s historical progress can’t be assumed. It has to be reclaimed, re-established. That’s more difficult in a fragmented information space geared for extremism.
It may seem as if it would be difficult to defend or justify a blatant piracy operation like Sci-Hub. But it can be done, if you’re willing to overlook certain facts and advance certain tenuous moral arguments.
Robert Harington attempts to help you think through how to develop a strategy for succession planning, recognizing that in today’s world, people just don’t stay at their jobs as long as they used to.
The open access megajournal is a proven success, but its future may lie in the hands of commercial entities.
The information war requires changes — new research priorities, new personal and professional boundaries, higher editorial hurdles, and a hardened infrastructure.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2011 post to think about why commercial publishers continue to dominate the landscape.
Most journals have adopted rapid publication processes, but with the rise of preprint servers and new trends among readers, maybe they can return to a slower, more considered pace.
Of the many proposals to lower the cost of college textbooks, the model called “inclusive access” may have the best chance, as it creates incentives for publishers and students alike.
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?
This is a presentation on consolidation in scholarly communications. It provides a primer on how companies look at acquisitions, how they are financed, and why they are likely to continue. The presentation also touches on start-ups and venture capital.
Funders have shifted their focus, and are funding, investing in, or launching initiatives that compete with publishers and constrain researchers. What changed?
Some notes on academic publishing, university presses in particular.
Are we thinking about predatory publishing the wrong way? Are researchers deliberately choosing these journals, and if so, what are the incentives driving this decision?