A recent ALA panel on discovery prompts some musings about the direction that local search will take and the likelihood that one vendor will control access to almost all library collections.
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
The very real trade-offs inherent in Internet security have to faced directly, but politicians are avoiding these trade-offs as they talk about SOPA and PIPA.
Some early thoughts on Apple’s recent announcement for tools for developing educational content. It’s not about the product; it’s a game of platform wars.
On the Wednesday of SOPA protests worldwide, it’s time to consider why these bills run counter to the security and reliability of the Internet itself.
A major economics association establishes conflict of interest and disclosure rules for its publications, expecting others to follow. But is the lateness of these rules reassuring, or maddening?
As the deadline for responses to the OSTP RFI approaches, perhaps we should reflect on how the government can make its own research reports available in a more complete, direct, and affordable manner.
Can tweets predict future citations? A study of article tweets raises validity and ethical concerns.
A dialogue on patron-driven acquisitions by a librarian (Rick Anderson) and a publishing consultant (Joe Esposito). Patron-driven acquisitons may evolve into patron-driven access. But publishers ultimately will have to bless the plans.
Amazon’s retail juggernaut has many people upset, but perhaps we should all reflect on the fact that a company devoted to customer service, thin margins, and a long-term disciplined strategy can thrive.
UNESCO, along with the U.S. State Department and others, launch a portal that has plenty of information, lower than usual amounts of rhetoric, but remains controversial because of how it’s positioned.
The misplaced anxiety and consternation publishers and authors showed in the face of Amazon’s Price Check app revealed an industry and culture rooted in the past. And that’s not where the readers of the future are coming from.
eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
More tired OA rhetoric, this time wielding an argument that copyright approaches of some OA publishers aren’t pure enough to qualify as “real” open access. Get ready to feel the burn.
The question of when print will end is often framed as if it is a natural occurrence, an evolutionary question, or the likely outcome of a sporting event, rather than a business decision that publishers may revisit on a regular basis.