As user expectations on digital experiences change, flat-out “search” is no longer good enough. The up-and-coming users of digital content expect you to know what they want and when they want it, without having to ask for it. These thoughts and more from the recent NFAIS Conference are discussed here.
Do publishers need to integrate the creation, management, delivery, and discovery of different content types? What best meets customer needs, optimizes resources, and encourages innovative new content products and services?
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers recently launched a consultation, requesting feedback from all stakeholders about their draft principles on article sharing on scholarly communication networks. Find out more about how and why these principles are needed and what the consultation hopes to achieve, n this interview with Fred Dylla, Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics, and project lead for the initiative.
Would adding a big flatscreen TV to my office might make a difference? Yes, in big and important ways.
Publishers have underestimated how disruptive mobile technology potentially can be. We are likely to see an entirely new ecosystem develop with the smart phone at the center.
The benefits of personalizing discovery are already playing themselves out in the consumer space, suggesting tremendous opportunities for using data to personalize the research process. Given the scale of data needed for effective personalization, the implications of changing discovery processes will cascade through the scholarly ecosystem.
The project manager has become a critical part of success in a publishing world with more complex systems, processes, and vendor relationships. But finding a good one is still a challenge.
Technology is great, but does it deserve top billing? Leon Wieseltier’s essay in the New York Times as well as articles by other academics raise a challenge to the information industry as a whole.
2015 has already started with a bang and we think there’s more to come, as you’ll see from the Chef’s responses to the question: What do you think will have the biggest impact on scholarly publishing in 2015?
The infrastructure for complying with public access mandates is well under way, but a critical component for identifying funding agencies could use a little work.
Publishers have to distinguish between features, products, and businesses. Not all features can become full-fledged businesses. Sometimes the best business case for a feature is to link it to an established business, where it adds value to assets that are already in place.
The Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) meeting in Europe is 10 years old, but feels as fresh and frisky as some of the meetings in the US used to. This report touches on some of the most interesting threads of two days’ worth of interesting presentations and conversations.
The collection of end-user data is going to become more important for all publishers and may serve to describe those publishers that will be most successful in the coming years. Although data-collection is often thought to be a malignant instance of “Big Brotherism,” it may in fact be benign when implemented thoughtfully.
The University of California Press has announced two new open access publishing initiatives, one a monographs program and the other an OA mega journal. Here UCP director Alison Mudditt answers some questions posed by the Kitchen about these new initiatives.
The administrative burden stemming from funding agency and institutional access policies is just beginning. Can we reduce the severity of this storm with careful planning and collaboration?