Fake News is making headlines as questions about how dubious stories may have influenced the US election. This post explores the damage done to reputable news organizations and what scholarly publishers could learn from the whole thing.
A post election look at what publishers can learn from the process.
Is Greta Van Susteren right in taking universities to task for building “huge libraries” and in characterizing them as “vanity projects” that have been obviated by the growing online availability of books and other scholarly resources? Obviously not — that’s the position of an ignorant philistine. Except…
Researchers may publish their best work at any point in their careers, a new study reports. This is not the same as success being the result of random forces or just plain “dumb luck.”
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
Six-plus years later, it’s time to revisit Michael Clarke’s now-classic post about disruption, or rather the lack thereof, in scientific publishing.
The pendulum for revenues swung from personal subscriptions to institutional subscriptions with the rise of digital options. With growth capped, a new mix of access options is likely to emerge.
Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper!
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the disruptive publishing environment, in which publishers cannot rely on a purely editorial strategy, as many of the issues now facing them are not editorial in nature.
Are the APC levels set for high-end OA journals too low to be sustainable? Are there other ways that might help high-end OA journals pay their way?
With greater awareness of the foibles and failings of scientific publishing, weaker self-regulation systems, and a trend toward governmental regulation of funding, is external regulation of the scientific journals system now inevitable?
Robert Harington references our current altered state in politics as a tool to reflect on the need to invoke balance in publishing innovation, and growth.
Would a systemwide “flip” to open access by means of universal article-processing charges work? David Shulenberger argues that it would not, and he may be right — but not for the reasons he gives.
A session at ALPSP shines a light on why publishers are caught in an impossible situation — satisfying customers who demand different things at different times, and who are not aligned around the ultimate benefit they all seek to deliver.
We typically classify publishers as Old Media and New Media, but now we have companies that are part of a new paradigm, the Dat Media company. Such companies sit above both Old and New, studying patterns in usage and in the databases of information aggregated by publishers.