An interview from April 2012, which remains as relevant today in explaining the incentives driving much of the behavior in academic research centers and scientific and scholarly publishing.
Is there really a strict divide between readers of books and ebooks?
Why do ebooks—and e-information generally—cause such teeth-grinding rage and rhetorical hysteria in some people?
Recent comments on a post about Gold OA in the UK dissected a lot of assertions we commonly see, and bear a closer reading.
A ten minute course in practical typography and a charming short film on its history. A great way to spend your Friday learning some valuable skills.
The UK government’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee issued a report this week that offers a harsh rebuke to the RCUK’s proposed plans to drive the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing in scholarly journals.
While open access remains a hot topic in our industry, we may not be discussing the most difficult aspects. Worse, OA proponents themselves may not be answering some of the questions that are now arising as a broader swath of academics, scientists, and administrators become aware of OA.
Although many people claim to know what scientists want, the author’s own ongoing survey has come up with results that are at odds with most conventional wisdom. This post summarizes those findings and identifies a near-universal view held by many scientists.
Time to review summer reading, not only what is on the list but also the very idea of summer reading. Summer reading takes us to a place outside ourselves, but for people involved with publishing, that far-off place is part of day-to-day reality.
A long-term observation among physicians and their relationship with the scientific literature leads to thoughts about the risks we run with our increasing focus on authors and funders — the producers, not the consumers.
A new essay by Rick Anderson proposes that libraries begin to focus more strongly on special collections and migrate away from the collection of commodity content. This would have a dramatic impact on the structure of the marketplace for scholarly materials and would be more disruptive than anything currently being bandied about. That may not be a bad thing.
A recent statement by the American Historical Association is generating heated debate about the rights and best interests of junior scholars, the market dynamics for scholarly monographs, and the competing needs of publishers, libraries, authors, and readers.
Google wins an appeal on class status for the Authors Guild lawsuit. This decision may have far-reaching effects on the case and fair use principles.
An expert on the semantic Web, structured markup, and the emerging area of research data services talks about the current state of play.
New documents obtained via an ongoing FOIA request show that PubMed Central spends most of its money tagging author manuscripts, and that its stricter rules for NIH authors may double its costs.