In a “post-truth” world with declining faith in scientific progress, what is the publisher role in the clear communication and promotion of scholarly research?
As Sci-Hub has grown up at the expense of publishers, it’s worth considering what its next steps might be in order to understand what new challenges it will pose.
Database marketing opens up large business opportunities, but only if the data is used with restraint.
Professional societies often seek partnerships for different reasons. This post summarized the categories of partnerships and helps to identify when a partnership is not really a partnership.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2011 post to think about why commercial publishers continue to dominate the landscape.
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.
Hypotheses that flatter our own preconceptions and biases are incredibly seductive, and the temptation to accept them at face value can be nearly irresistible. But in a world that seems to be drifting away from analytical rigor and fact-based decision-making, the ability to resist that temptation is more essential than ever.
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.
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.
The real innovation of CiteScore is not another performance metric, but a new marketing model focused on editors.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the role publishers’ brands play in purchasing decisions.
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.
Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper!
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the disruptive publishing environment, in which publishers cannot rely on a purely editorial strategy, as many of the issues now facing them are not editorial in nature.
What do people mean when they say scholarly publishing is “ripe for disruption”? Where might such disruption come from, and what will drive its success?