Content as Commodity — Price Elasticity and New Business Models
The commodity nature of the OA service seems to predict certain structural aspects, including lower prices and bigger journals.
The commodity nature of the OA service seems to predict certain structural aspects, including lower prices and bigger journals.
The governance of not-for-profit publishing entities plays a large role in those entities’ success or failure.
Article reprints can be a considerable source of income for some medical journals and there is some worry that this source of income presents a conflict of interest for publishers.
The orphan works problem is finite. Current practices will chip away at the number of orphans. It is unlikely that more orphans will be created in the future because it is so easy for publishers now to hold onto rights and keep books available in some form.
Attempts to game a journal’s Impact Factor can result in being de-listed from the Journal Citation Report. Most offenders learn their lesson and return to normal citation behavior.
A surprising collection found at the Schroedinger Archive includes a number of works of short fiction that take scholarly communications as their subject. In it, we find a tale with many surprising reversals — “The Library With No Books In It.”
In my last posting, I posed four questions brought to my mind by the Aaron Swartz case. Here, I propose what I think are reasonable answers to those questions. The result is kind of a long post, but hey, it’s the weekend. Tell your spouse that the yard work will have to wait; you’re busy helping to solve the fundamental structural problems of the scholarly information marketplace.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the allegations against Swartz are proved and that he’s convicted. What would his case mean? It seems to me that it raises a number of questions that have received insufficient attention up until now.
Welcome to a new feature of the Scholarly Kitchen we’re calling “Ask the Chefs.” The premise is that each month, the Chefs (contributors) to the Scholarly Kitchen will answer a provocative question in a pithy paragraph or two. Each Chef answers the question without benefit of seeing the others’ responses. This month’s question: “What Do You Think Is the Most Important Trend in Publishing Today?”
If the Journal Usage Factor were run like an election, it would be a system where each party runs its own polls, hoards its own votes, provides no paper trail, and has the power to ignore any appeal.
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
Allowing authors access to anti-plagiarism software makes pragmatic sense when you consider the demands scientific journals place on authors for perfect English, the pressures of group authorship, and the incrementalism of most papers. Perhaps it could even do more.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
When publishers don’t employ foresight, they find themselves with challenges to their businesses, often from unexpected directions. Innovation is an imperative.