Framing the Open Access Debate
The debate over Open Access is not about science or economics but about core values and the language that embodies them.
The debate over Open Access is not about science or economics but about core values and the language that embodies them.
Newspapers are running out of ideas. A litany of desperate measures don’t bode well for a dying industry.
On a day when Kindle 2.0 is expected the debut, the e-book is just one force reshaping the book of the future.
Serialized print publishing has a frequency problem eating at its core. Can journal publishers anticipate and adjust?
Does the settlement of the case between Gatehouse and the New York Times cast any light? Is the commercial model for news aggregation any closer to being settled?
Seth Godin wonders if we’ll miss newspapers. For a growing proportion of the population, it’s already a moot point.
As publishers face the loss of 2/3 of their options, a radical reinvention may be required, ala Nintendo’s Wii.
Scholarly publishers risk following the newspaper industry if they don’t value peer-review.
Sure, the news is a commodity now, but perhaps losing the data is what triggered the beginning of the end for newspapers.
The New York Times has 10,000 Kindle subscribers. What else is coming?
The Christian Science Monitor drops daily print. The big news may be that it still exists at all.
News is breaking. How it’s breaking holds lessons for customer-centric scholarly publishers.
The Kindle’s use-case isn’t what I’d assumed. In fact, I’m thinking very differently about it.
Editors still write headlines like they’re for print and people. With online, headlines shift to a new environment and have at least two more audiences.
UAL loses $1 billion in value, thanks to the power of apomediation combined with a mess in the metadata.