Perhaps the academy has not taken control of scholarly publishing because it doesn’t want to.
A history of the rise of coercive media suggests that raising barriers to entry may be a remedy. Could a business model shift do most of the work for us?
There appears to be no realistic path forward that achieves Europe’s 2020 open access targets without resulting in substantial revenue reductions for existing publishers. Will Europe miss its OA target? Or will publishers miss their revenue targets?
Rob Johnson looks at the growth of hybrid open access, and questions whether it will remain a reliable revenue stream for publishers.
The read-and-publish business model has been introduced to the U.S. by MIT and the Royal Society of Chemistry. It has implications for publishers, however, that must be studied carefully.
Google’s journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
Libraries and legacy publishers are in an unholy embrace. They need not love each other to feel they should stick together.
Lisa Hinchliffe asks, if the true value is of a subscription is being obscured by over-utilization, should libraries seek to dampen such excess in order to have more appropriate measures of the real value of a subscription?
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
The Society for Scholarly Publishing is celebrating its 40th anniversary, so this month we asked the Chefs, What was the most important development in scholarly communications in the last 40 years?
In Springer Nature’s “botched” IPO, did the market see it as one of the publishers at risk of being left behind by real innovation in scholarly communication and research workflow?
Sven Fund from Knowledge Unlatched talks about new approaches needed to drive open access progress.
In a sector awash with training courses, what makes the FORCE11 Scholarly Communications Institute necessary, or different? The academic nature of its approach, the bang for your buck, and the high density of change-makers.
Is copyright infringement malum prohibitum (wrong only because it’s prohibited) or malum in se (morally wrong in and of itself)? Interestingly, scholcomm commentators and legal reference materials often characterize it as the former–while both statute and case law treat it like the latter, classifying it as “property theft” and regularly awarding its victims both statutory and punitive damages.
Haggling for cheaper content today will certainly have hidden and unpleasant costs — large and small — down the road.