Of the many proposals to lower the cost of college textbooks, the model called “inclusive access” may have the best chance, as it creates incentives for publishers and students alike.
Artificial intelligence is now a commodity appliance. What are the implications for Scholarly Publishing?
Does the closing of Axios Review portend the end of independent peer review?
This is a presentation on consolidation in scholarly communications. It provides a primer on how companies look at acquisitions, how they are financed, and why they are likely to continue. The presentation also touches on start-ups and venture capital.
Funders have shifted their focus, and are funding, investing in, or launching initiatives that compete with publishers and constrain researchers. What changed?
Are we thinking about predatory publishing the wrong way? Are researchers deliberately choosing these journals, and if so, what are the incentives driving this decision?
Several services attempt to gather up “all” of the content across publishers. This post provides an overview and taxonomy.
An overview of usage trends across libraries and journals indicates that usage is generally stable or up, archives remain of interest, and consumption doesn’t align with authorship or funding.
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.