The recent brouhaha about HarperCollins’ policy of restricting ebook circulation in libraries misses the larger point that libraries and publishers can work toward satisfying their respective interests.
Rather than relying on journal prestige and bibliometric indicators, universities should consider paying experts to conduct institutional peer review, report recommends.
How did “scholarly communication” become equated with open access advocacy? Is its misuse ultimately self-defeating?
The revolution in book publishing shares some aspects with revolutions everywhere. Here’s a short slideshow by the founder of Smashwords examining current motivations for authors.
[Phone rings.] Librarian: Hello? Sales Rep: Hello! Robert from Acme Scholarly Journals here. As you know, for the past year we’ve been working on a new pricing model for our journal package, and now that it’s ready my boss and […]
While sophisticated arguments about how the Internet is changing our brains continue, a look back at the history of communications systems shows we’re really arguing about something more base.
The tablet wars are on, with special significance for STM publishers.
Apple’s apparent abuse of its platform dominance may signal a basic incompatibility between providers and platforms.
With more and more science being tested and communicated outside traditional outlets, we may face a moment when faith in the existing system breaks down.
The outer ring of citation remains a point of vulnerability for quality proxies, as does reducing complex things to simple lists or numbers. When will we learn?
Should publishers endorse commercial editing services?
Why do smart people continue to seek simple rank-order listings of inherently complex phenomena?
A study by two respected economists suggests it may be time to admit that we made a mistake attributing a citation advantage to open access articles.
Maligned though it often is, the Big Deal for journals is likely to get bigger, marginalizing the offerings of smaller publishers.
Full of experimental biases and important omissions, what can be learned from the Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) survey of scientists?