Robert Harington argues that academic societies need to balance mission and business more effectively. There is nothing wrong with developing a mixed publishing economy that best suits a range of communities and types of business.
Thus the defining property of traditional publishing is editorial selection. That is what publishing is about.
The apparently different approaches Kopernio, Unpaywall, and Anywhere Access are taking might have a common assumption at their hearts — the status quo.
Institutional and consumer markets are becoming more closely linked because of Amazon’s powerful value proposition, making it necessary for academic book publishers to create consumer services of their own.
We can be certain that, if Elsevier asserts its obvious platform advantages, there is no data firewall that can protect other publishers from Elsevier’s strategic advance.
Thanks to a major new international research study, it’s no longer possible to pretend that predatory journals are not a serious problem that needs serious attention. The question is: do we have the will to confront it?
Elsevier’s acquisition of Aries Systems sends shockwaves through the industry, but is it really that surprising?
Recent coordinated investigatory journalism articles, along with separate regulatory actions, are squeezing predatory publishers. But are the root causes being addressed?
Robert Harington describes how the recent, under the radar launch of the Amazon Global Store is putting local businesses at risk.
We have had assumptions about the academic book market that probably are just not true.
Calling something a “monopoly” has been misleading in many cases, but the new economy may require a complete rethinking of the anti-competitiveness created by intermediaries at scale.
A history of the rise of coercive media suggests that raising barriers to entry may be a remedy. Could a business model shift do most of the work for us?
The read-and-publish business model has been introduced to the U.S. by MIT and the Royal Society of Chemistry. It has implications for publishers, however, that must be studied carefully.
In Springer Nature’s “botched” IPO, did the market see it as one of the publishers at risk of being left behind by real innovation in scholarly communication and research workflow?