The rise of mobile is cementing business model expectations and driving new monopolies, but the ethics, incentives, and consequences of these models need to be considered.
Point: Counterpoint — today we revisit a pair of posts from Joe Esposito and Rick Anderson looking at partnerships and collaborations between university libraries and university presses.
Trolls dominate for many reasons — economics, technology, our predilection for sordid entertainment. But they’ve chilled online discourse and damaged civil exchanges, even making some publishers reluctant to take full advantage of the potential of the Internet. Are we ready for v2.0 of commenting?
We once assumed taxpayer-funding meant information availability. The new US government is now actively hiding scientific data, imperiling our understanding of the world.
Revisiting our review of Paula Stephan’s book after her keynote talk at the SSP Annual Meeting.
A review of top journals in 18 fields show they are on a variety of platforms, suggesting cognitive burden for users which may be driving them to aggregated options with unified user experiences.
Database marketing opens up large business opportunities, but only if the data is used with restraint.
In this article Robert Harington suggests that some society journal publishers may wish to consider moving their journal program to a Diamond open access (OA) model. Nice idea right, but easier said than done.
Open access (OA) publishing seeks to eliminate paywalls for users. It has largely succeeded, but new diversions and distractions built into the commercial Internet may create new barriers that will be harder to deal with.
In recent years, observers have noticed that articles for which an APC has been paid are not always made freely available. How pervasive is this problem? A Scholarly Kitchen reader investigates.
Algorithms behave in ways even their creators can’t understand, yet they dominate how we share and see information. Do we need a “Three Laws for Algorithms”?
For years, we in libraries have been predicting the imminent demise of the manifestly-unsustainable Big Deal — and yet it has persisted. Now that may be changing.
Many of the finest scholarly publications can boast of exemplary editorial programs, but the advent of Gold Open Access, especially when mandated by funding agencies, may make this kind of editorial activity a thing of the past.
Science’s historical progress can’t be assumed. It has to be reclaimed, re-established. That’s more difficult in a fragmented information space geared for extremism.
It may seem as if it would be difficult to defend or justify a blatant piracy operation like Sci-Hub. But it can be done, if you’re willing to overlook certain facts and advance certain tenuous moral arguments.