Should Journals Sell Reprints?

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 Shrinking Orphan Works Problem

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.

The Library With No Books In It

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.”

Asked and Answered: Here's What I Think the Aaron Swartz Case Means

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.

The Aaron Swartz Case: What Does It Mean?

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.

Ask the Chefs: "What Do You Think Is the Most Important Trend in Publishing Today?"

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?”

Plagiarism — The Great Leveler

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.

Branding, Plausible Deniability, and the New York Times

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.