With recent political upheaval sparking activism among scientists, librarians, and educators, where do publishers fit? What are they doing? What should they do?
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
Fifteen years after the term was coined, we still don’t have a single agreed-upon definition of Open Access (OA). What are the implications of this diversity of views within the OA movement, and how much does it really matter?
As we’ve absorbed and adopted the information economy assumptions peddled by Silicon Valley, social isolation has increased, the definition of “fact” has become slippery, and the scientific record has become more superficial, less reliable, and more transitory. In fact, confirmation bias seems to have become our main operating principle. Maybe a change in economic incentives and greater skepticism across the board could help — all driven by more humans at the controls.
A few take-aways from STM Week, including London Information International — why publishers have to take security seriously, why OA may need to itself be disrupted, and why we might want to rethink the “content business” positioning we have.
We are often called upon to discuss open access to society publishers. This is what we tell them.
A new book reviews various instances of piracy in the media industry and proposes using Big Data analyses as a means to manage it.
Information warfare is both tactical and strategic, with much of its success stemming from the weakened economics of the current information economy. Scholarly publishers have experienced this in many ways, from Google Scholar to predatory publishers to pre-print archives — all answers to the calls for “free information” and all revealing tactical and strategic vulnerabilities as accuracy and facts become luxury items in the information war.
The age of information abundance may have fundamental flaws — barriers to entry that create false equivalence; dissemination tools that conflate fake information with responsible sources; self-reinforcing loops of conspiracy and paranoia; and social fragmentation that makes societal disruption more likely. What can be done? Here are a few ideas.
2016, The. Laughs. Just. Keep. Coming… This is a post about how events in the non-scholarly publishing world are going to have a very big impact on us. Question is, what are we going to do about what’s going on?
Fake News is making headlines as questions about how dubious stories may have influenced the US election. This post explores the damage done to reputable news organizations and what scholarly publishers could learn from the whole thing.
The long-desired hope that digital publishing will be cheaper gets more cold water, as infrastructure and personnel costs continue to rise, with no real end in sight.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the role publishers’ brands play in purchasing decisions.
Six-plus years later, it’s time to revisit Michael Clarke’s now-classic post about disruption, or rather the lack thereof, in scientific publishing.
The pendulum for revenues swung from personal subscriptions to institutional subscriptions with the rise of digital options. With growth capped, a new mix of access options is likely to emerge.