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?
Sven Fund from Knowledge Unlatched talks about new approaches needed to drive open access progress.
Publishers have shown themselves to be resourceful, navigating troubled waters to growth and profitability.
Even Silicon Valley is finding that recurring revenues (aka, subscriptions) lead to more valuable businesses, while helping smaller companies thrive.
Is copyright infringement malum prohibitum (wrong only because it’s prohibited) or malum in se (morally wrong in and of itself)? Interestingly, scholcomm commentators and legal reference materials often characterize it as the former–while both statute and case law treat it like the latter, classifying it as “property theft” and regularly awarding its victims both statutory and punitive damages.