Scholarly publishers are already doing much to make government funded research as free as possible as soon as it is published. Why do we need a law to enact what is already taking shape? Robert Harington suggests it comes down to politics.
The genetics testing copany 23andme presents an interesting example of a new kind of data publishing.
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2016 post on the ever-increasing costs of digital publishing.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2014 piece on the competition among journal publishers to acquire the rights to professional society publications. As the marketplace continues to consolidate, these pressures have only increased.
The recent attempt by China to censor scholarship points to a growing set of challenges in information dissemination. Blaming the publisher obscures these issues.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? What about patents on publicly funded research? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
Conflicts of interest and corporate-funded research have expanded, with journals increasingly used by mega-corporations to advance their initiatives. What will this mean for scholarly publishing?
The superficial distinction between non-profits and for-profits bears scrutiny. What are the true differences? Is either structure innately superior?
Cabell’s International has stepped into the gap left by the demise of Beall’s List, providing a new predatory journal blacklist that promises to perform the function of identifying and calling out scam publishers more consistently and transparently. How is it doing so far?
The rise of mobile is cementing business model expectations and driving new monopolies, but the ethics, incentives, and consequences of these models need to be considered.
Point: Counterpoint — today we revisit a pair of posts from Joe Esposito and Rick Anderson looking at partnerships and collaborations between university libraries and university presses.
Trolls dominate for many reasons — economics, technology, our predilection for sordid entertainment. But they’ve chilled online discourse and damaged civil exchanges, even making some publishers reluctant to take full advantage of the potential of the Internet. Are we ready for v2.0 of commenting?
Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2012 interview with the author of “How Economics Shape Science”.
A review of top journals in 18 fields show they are on a variety of platforms, suggesting cognitive burden for users which may be driving them to aggregated options with unified user experiences.
Database marketing opens up large business opportunities, but only if the data is used with restraint.