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.
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.
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.
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.
When publishers don’t employ foresight, they find themselves with challenges to their businesses, often from unexpected directions. Innovation is an imperative.
There are many new companies seeking to disrupt the college textbook model. Here is a taxonomy of the strategies, with some comments on the likelihood of their being adopted.
The plagiarism-detection products in use in academia and scholarly publishing are also available for students and authors, who can pre-screen their papers to lower their chances of detection. In the middle, iParadigms takes money from both sides. Is this proper?
An Internet activist hacks MIT to hack JSTOR, even though he had access through Harvard. Now, he’s facing federal charges.
The Harry Potter series will now be available as e-books. Among the lessons for publishers is the desirability of direct-marketing.
The orphan works problem is not easily resolved, but it may not be such a big problem, as books mostly become orphans because there is little demand for them.
A massive study of student papers by Turnitin reveals that many are copying text from Wikipedia and other user-generated sites, but it’s not clear in distinguishing text-matches from plagiarism.
Despite the fact that the Google Books settlement was not approved, Google’s mass digitization has forever transformed the landscape of publishing, libraries, and the way we think about information.
The abstract is an element of scientific papers we take for granted. Is that a good idea in a networked information environment gravitating to usage-based measures?
The Google Books Settlement actually hit its second roadblock this week. Here’s why, and where matter might go from here.